Scalercio-Isenberg v. Credit Suisse Group

Background

Sherry Scalercio-Isenberg filed this action without a lawyer against Credit Suisse Group; Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS); Mitchell Scott Kurtz, Esq.; and Robert D. Bailey, Esq. She alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605, and state law. Her allegations concerned a residential mortgage-backed security transaction, allegedly false credit-report information, mortgage payments allegedly directed to an account titled “Unapplied,” and alleged harassment and intimidation by Kurtz and Bailey.

The opinion states that Scalercio-Isenberg lives in Sparta, New Jersey. It also states that Kurtz and Bailey are lawyers at a New Jersey law firm and that she provided a Somerset, New Jersey, address for them. The complaint alleged that the harm from the credit reporting and debt-collection claims occurred in New Jersey and that the alleged conduct by Kurtz and Bailey also occurred there. The court referred to an earlier round of this dispute in the District of New Jersey, without relying on that earlier proceeding as the basis for this transfer ruling.

Venue Analysis

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the general federal venue statute. It concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York under the provision concerning where defendants reside because Scalercio-Isenberg did not allege that all defendants resided in New York or New Jersey. The court also concluded that venue was not proper there under the provision concerning where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred because the complaint did not allege that those events occurred in the Southern District of New York.

The court explained that, for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims, the relevant location generally includes where a plaintiff receives a collection notice or telephone call. For the Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, the court stated that the place where the harm occurred is relevant to venue. Based on the complaint, the court determined that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in New Jersey. Venue was therefore proper in the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Disposition

The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which permits transfer when venue is improper. The Clerk was directed to transfer the action, not issue a summons from the Southern District of New York, terminate all pending matters, and close the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion did not decide the merits of Scalercio-Isenberg’s underlying federal or state-law claims.