ILNews

Divided 7th Circuit revives Marion County Small Claims suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More than eight months after Judge Richard Posner argued in a dissent that Newsom v. Friedman needs to be overruled, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did just that in an en banc decision involving Marion County’s Township courts.

Posner and Judge David Hamilton authored the majority opinion in Mark Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions LLC, 13-1821, in which the court decided the correct interpretation of “judicial district or similar legal entity” under Section 1692i of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is the smallest geographic area that is relevant for determining venue in the court system where the case is filed. For Marion County Small Claims courts, the smallest area is the township.

This is opposite of what the 7th Circuit decided in Newsom, 76 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 1996), in which a panel adopted a test based on details of court administration rather than on the applicable venue rules. The Circuit Court in Suesz not only reversed the court’s previous ruling which held that small claims cases could be brought in any Marion County Township Court, but it also overruled Newsom.

Med-1 Solutions filed a collection lawsuit against Mark Suesz in Pike Township, seeking to recover medical debt Suesz incurred from treatment in Lawrence Township. Suesz does not live in Pike Township. Suesz sued, seeking damages under the FDCPA, which requires debt collectors to bring the suit in the judicial district where the contract was signed or where the consumer resides.  District Court Judge William Lawerence, citing Newsom, tossed Suesz’s lawsuit in March 2013.

“[I]n Newsom we relied on what was said to be the plain language of the statute, though the language is not plain at all when applied to the Marion County township courts,” Posner and Hamilton wrote in Mark Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions LLC, 13-1821. Wednesday they adopted an approach that focuses on the state court venue rules faced by parties and lawyers, and the relevant geographic unit for applying those rules.

“This interpretation of the statutory term discourages abusive forum-shopping by debt collectors rather than enabling it,” the majority writes. They remanded for further proceedings on class certification and the merits of Suesz’s claim. The majority declined Med-1 Solutions request that Newsom be overruled only on a prospective basis.  

Judge Diane Sykes concurred with Posner and Hamilton’s opinion, including the decision to overrule Newsom, but she noted she shares some of the concerns expressed by Judge Joel Flaum in his dissent, to which Judge Michael Kanne joined. They do not believe Newsom should be overturned.

“But instead of deferring to the state’s definition of its districts, the majority replaces congressional silence in §1692i with a purposive definition of judicial district that is of the majority’s own design. In doing so, the court federalizes the term “judicial district” for the purposes of the FDCPA. I decline to join this decision because I believe the court’s rule seizes upon a general congressional purpose behind the FDCPA – protecting debtors from abusive collection practices – to craft a rule more exacting than Congress intended. A high-level statutory purpose is simply an insufficient justification for this stringent new rule,” Flaum wrote.

Kane also wrote a separate dissent, “While I am of the opinion that the judicial circuits themselves, and not any specific court within them, are the relevant ‘judicial districts’ in Indiana, I find Judge Flaum’s reasoned approach and his adherence to our Newsom decision much more persuasive than put forward by the majority.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT