In a state court of general jurisdiction in State A, a debtor, who was a resident of State A, brought suit against a lender, who
was an alien with permanent residency status in State B, for violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The lender waived personal jurisdiction. Under state procedural rules, venue was proper in the state court. The lender timely removed the action to the federal court for the Northern District of State A, which was the district in which the state court sat. The lender then timely moved to dismiss the action for improper venue, noting that, had the action initially been brought in federal court, the federal court for the Northern District of State A would not have had proper venue over this action. How should the court rule on this motion
Precedent refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues.
