Elaine Marshall v. Frederick J. Hanna and Associates, P.C., No. 15-15417 (11th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-15417 Date Filed: 12/16/2016 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-15417 ________________________ D.C. Docket No.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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.