This appeal concerns venue in an action brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices . Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692o (1988). Specifically, the issue is whether venue exists in a district in which the debt- or resides and to which a bill collector’s demand for payment was forwarded. The issue arises on an appeal by Phillip E. Bates from the May 21, 1992, judgment of the District Court for the Western District of New York (William M. Skretny, Judge), dismissing his complaint because of improper venue. We conclude that venue was proper under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(b)(2) (West Supp.1992) and therefore reverse and remand.
Background
Bates commenсed this action in the Western District of New York upon receipt of a collection notice from C & S Adjusters, Inc. (“C & S”). Bates alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and demanded statutory damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. The facts relevant to venue are not in dispute. Bates incurred the debt in question while he was a resident of the Western District оf Pennsylvania. The creditor, a corporation with its principal place of business in that District, referred the account to C & S, a local collection agency which transacts no regular business in New York. Bates had meanwhile moved to the Western District of New York. When C & S mailed a collection notice to Bates at his Pennsylvania address, the Postal Servicе forwarded the notice to Bates’ new address in New York.
In its answer, C & S asserted two affirmative defenses and also counterclaimed for costs, alleging that the action was instituted in bad faith and for purposes of harassment. C & S subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue, which the District Court granted.
Discussion
1. Venue and the 1990 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
Bates concedes that the only plausible venue provision for this actiоn is 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(b)(2), which allows an action to be brought in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” Prior to 1990, section 1391 allowed for venue in “the judiciаl district ... in which the claim arose.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (1988). This case represents our first opportunity to consider the significance of the 1990 amendments.
Prior to 1966, venue was proper in federal question cаses, absent a special venue statute, only in the defendant’s state of citizenship. If a plaintiff sought to sue multiple defendants who were citizens of different states, there might be no district whеre the entire action could be brought.
See
1A Part 2 James W. Moore,
Moore’s Federal Practice,
II 0.342[4] at 4091-95 (2d ed. 1991). Congress closed this “venue gap” by adding a provision allowing suit in the district “in which the claim arose.” This phrase gave rise to a variety of conflicting interpretations. Some courts thought it meant that there could be only one such district; others believed there could be several. Different tests developed, with courts loоking for “substantial contacts,” the “weight of contacts,” the place of injury or performance, or even to the boundaries of personal jurisdiction under state law.
See
Moore ¶ 0.342[5.-2-1] аt 4142-45. District courts within the Second Circuit used at least three of these approaches.
See Weil v. New York State Department of Transportation,
The Supreme Cоurt gave detailed attention to section 1391(b) in
Leroy v. Great Western United Corp.,
Subsequent to
Leroy
and prior to the 1990 amendment to section 1391(b), most courts have apрlied at least a form of the “weight of contacts” test,
see, e.g., Transistor Devices, Inc. v. Tracor, Inc.,
Against this background, we understand Congress’ 1990 amendment to be at most a marginal expansion of the venue provision. The House Report indicates that the new language was first proposed by the American Law Institute in a 1969 Study, and оbserves:
The great advantage of referring to the place where things happened ... is that it avoids the litigation breeding phrase “in which the claim arose.” It also avoids the problem created by the frequent cases in which substantial parts of the underlying events have occurred in several districts.
H.R.Rep. No. 734, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 23,
reprinted in
1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6860, 6869. Thus it seems clear that
Leroy’s
strong admonition against recognizing multiple venues has been disapproved. Many of the factors in
Leroy
— for instance, the convenience of defendants and the location of evidence and witnesses — are' most useful in distinguishing between two or more plаusible venues. Since the new statute does not, as a general matter, require the District Court to determine the best venue, these factors will be of less significance.
See Magic Toyоta, Inc. v. Southeast Toyota Distributors, Inc.,
2. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Under the version of the venue statute in force from 1966 to 1990, at least three District Cоurts held that venue was proper under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in the plaintiff’s home district if a collection agency had mailed a collection notice, to an address, in that district or placed a phone call to a number in that district.
See Murphy v. Allen County Claims & Adjustments, Inc.,
We conclude, however, that this difference is inconsequential, at least under the current venue statute. The statutory standard fоr venue focuses not on whether a defendant has made a deliberate contact — a factor relevant in the analysis of personal jurisdiction 1 — but on the location where events occurred. Under the new version of section 1391(b)(2), we must determine only whether a “substantial part of the events ... giving rise to the claim” occurred in the Western District of New York.
In adoрting this statute, Congress was concerned about the harmful effect of abusive debt practices on consumers. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a) (“Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number оf personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.”). This harm does not occur until receipt of the collection notice. Indeed, if the notice were lost in the mail, it is unlikely that a violation of the Act would have occurred. 2 Moreover, a debt collection agency sends its dunning letters so that they will be received. Fоrwarding such letters to the district to which a debt- or has moved is an important step in the collection process. If the bill collector prefers not to be challenged for its collection practices outside the district of a debtor’s original residence, the envelope can be marked “do not forward.” We conclude that receipt of a collection notice is a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The relevant factors identified in Leroy add support to our conclusion. Although “bona fide error” can be a defense to liability under the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c), the alleged violations of the Act turn largely not on the collection agency’s intent, but on the content of the collection notice. The most relevant evidence — the collection notice — is located in the Western District of New York. Because the collection agency appears not to have marked the notice with instructions not to forward, and has not objected to the assertion of personal jurisdiction, trial in the Western District of New York would not be unfair.
Conclusion
The judgment of thе District Court is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Notes
. C & S has waived whatever claim it might have had that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction оver it. Waiver resulted from C & S’s failure to allege lack of personal jurisdiction in its answer or motion to dismiss. See Fed. R.CÍV.P. 12(b)(2), (h).
. Although we need not decide the issue today, we note that at least one cоurt has indicated that a plaintiffs cause of action might not accrue until receipt of the collection notice for purposes of the Act’s one-year statute of limitаtions, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) (1988).
See Seabrook v. Onondaga Bureau of Medical Economics, Inc.,