Sixth Circuit Revives FDCPA, Michigan Collection Claims Against Oklahoma Law Firm
Case Snapshot
- Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- Case: Ross v. Robinson, Hoover & Fudge, PLLC, No. 25-1802
- Core Issue: Whether Michigan courts have personal jurisdiction over an Oklahoma law firm accused of unlawfully garnishing a Michigan resident’s wages.
- Key Allegation: The law firm allegedly violated the FDCPA and Michigan collection law by garnishing Michigan wages without properly domesticating an Oklahoma judgment.
- Court Holding: The law firm’s alleged conduct was purposefully directed at Michigan and satisfied both constitutional due process requirements and Michigan’s long-arm statute.
- Outcome: District court dismissal reversed, and case remanded for further proceedings.
- Notable Detail: The Sixth Circuit emphasized that knowingly targeting wages earned in Michigan by a Michigan resident constituted sufficient forum contacts for personal jurisdiction.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has revived a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) lawsuit against an Oklahoma law firm, holding that Michigan courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state debt collector that allegedly targeted a Michigan resident’s wages through garnishment efforts.
In Ross v. Robinson, Hoover & Fudge, PLLC, the appellate court reversed a Michigan federal district court’s dismissal of the case and remanded it for further proceedings. The decision provides important guidance on personal jurisdiction in debt collection litigation, particularly when collection activities affect consumers residing in another state.
Court Finds Sufficient Michigan Contacts
The case arose after Alexander Ross purchased a vehicle in Oklahoma and later moved to Michigan following a divorce. After the vehicle loan defaulted, creditor Auto Advantage Finance retained Oklahoma-based law firm Robinson, Hoover & Fudge (RHF) to pursue collection efforts in Oklahoma state court.
RHF obtained an Oklahoma default judgment and later sought to collect on that judgment through wage garnishment. According to the court, RHF knew Ross was living and working in Michigan when it pursued garnishment efforts that ultimately resulted in wages earned in Michigan being withheld.
Ross subsequently sued RHF in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging violations of the FDCPA and the Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act (MRCPA). He argued that the firm improperly garnished his Michigan wages without first domesticating the Oklahoma judgment under Michigan law.
The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding RHF lacked sufficient contacts with Michigan. The Sixth Circuit disagreed.
Purposeful Direction of Collection Activity
Writing for the unanimous panel, Judge Karen Nelson Moore concluded that Ross made a prima facie showing that RHF purposefully directed its activities toward Michigan.
The court emphasized that RHF knew Ross resided in Michigan and that its collection efforts targeted wages earned by a Michigan resident working for a Michigan-based employer. The resulting garnishment allegedly caused financial harm within Michigan and imposed administrative burdens on the employer.
The panel distinguished the case from the Supreme Court’s decision in Walden v. Fiore, finding it more closely resembled cases where defendants intentionally directed conduct toward forum-state residents and could reasonably anticipate being sued there.
The court stated that RHF’s alleged actions were expressly aimed at Michigan because the firm sought to reach wages earned there and knew the consequences of its actions would be felt by a Michigan resident.
Long-Arm Statute Also Supports Jurisdiction
Beyond the constitutional due process analysis, the Sixth Circuit also found that Michigan’s long-arm statute independently supported jurisdiction.
The court held that RHF allegedly caused economic consequences within Michigan by pursuing collection activity that resulted in wages earned in the state being garnished. Those alleged consequences were sufficient to satisfy Michigan’s statutory requirements for limited personal jurisdiction.
Importantly, the court did not rule on whether RHF actually violated the FDCPA, the MRCPA, or Michigan’s Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. Those issues remain unresolved and will be addressed on remand.
Potential Industry Implications
The ruling may have implications for debt collectors, law firms, and judgment creditors pursuing consumers who relocate across state lines.
The decision suggests that collectors who knowingly target wages, assets, or other collection activity directed at consumers in another state may be subject to litigation in that state’s courts, even when the underlying judgment was obtained elsewhere.
For compliance professionals, the case highlights the jurisdictional risks associated with interstate judgment enforcement and wage garnishment activity, particularly where state domestication requirements may be implicated.
