Case: 15-15417 Date Filed: 12/16/2016 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15417
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cv-00206-CAR
ELAINE MARSHALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FREDERICK J. HANNA AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_______________________
(December 16, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges, and
MARTINEZ, * District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable Jose E. Martinez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida,
sitting by designation.
Case: 15-15417 Date Filed: 12/16/2016 Page: 2 of 2
The only issue in this appeal is whether the venue provision of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692i(a)(2), applies to garnishment
proceedings under Georgia law. That issue is controlled by recent binding
precedent. See Ray v. McCullough Payne & Haan, LLC, No. 16-11518 (11th Cir.
Sept. 29, 2016). The venue provision of the Act requires “[a]ny debt collector who
brings any legal action on a debt against any consumer” to “bring such action only
in the judicial district . . . in which such consumer signed the contract sued upon;
or in which such consumer resides at the commencement of the action.” 15 U.S.C.
§ 1629i(a)(2). We held in Ray that the provision does not apply to garnishment
proceedings brought under Georgia law because those proceedings are
“fundamentally an action against the garnishee, not the consumer.” Ray, slip op.
at 8. Frederick J. Hanna and Associates obtained a judgment against Elaine
Marshall and then filed a garnishment action in Georgia against her employer.
Because this garnishment proceeding was against the garnishee, Marshall’s
employer, and not the consumer, Marshall, the venue provision of the Act does not
apply.
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
2