A District Court judge in Michigan has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action lawsuit alleging it garnished wages illegally.
The background: The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated Michigan law by garnishing wages based on an Oklahoma judgment without first domesticating the judgment in Michigan, as required by the state’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.
- The plaintiff was listed as co-buyer of a car with his then-wife. Following their divorce in 2019, the plaintiff moved to Michigan.
- The vehicle was repossessed in 2020, and the defendant obtained a default judgment in Oklahoma for the deficiency balance.
- The plaintiff claimed the defendant then garnished more than $2,500 from his wages without following Michigan’s domestication requirements.
- The plaintiff argued that this conduct amounted to conversion, caused harm in Michigan, and constituted an FDCPA violation, thus establishing specific personal jurisdiction in the state.
The ruling: Judge Denise Page Hood of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan disagreed, finding the plaintiff failed to show the defendant had sufficient contacts with Michigan to establish personal jurisdiction. While the garnishment allegedly harmed the plaintiff in Michigan, the court emphasized that “mere injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient connection to the forum.”
- Judge Hood noted that the defendant’s judgment and garnishment actions occurred through Oklahoma proceedings, and the garnished funds originated from out-of-state entities, never entering Michigan before payment to the defendant. The only link to Michigan was the plaintiff’s residence, a factor she found insufficient for “purposeful availment” of Michigan’s jurisdiction.
- “The proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant’s conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way,” Judge Hood wrote, quoting a Supreme Court ruling.
- The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, leaving the plaintiff the option to pursue the matter in Oklahoma.
- The judge acknowledged the defendant’s “roundabout method” of executing the judgment but suggested any remedy would need to be sought in the Oklahoma courts.
