Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing plaintiff-debtor’s lawsuit alleging that defendant-creditor violated section 1629i of FDCPA by filing debt collection claim in Indiana township small claims court, even though contract that formed basis of debt was not signed in said township and plaintiff did not live there. While Dist. Ct. found that relevant “judicial district” included all township small claims courts within county that plaintiff lived so as to give defendant wide choice of venues, Ct. of Appeals, in overturning Newsom, 76 F.3d 813, found that “judicial district or similar legal entity” as contemplated in section 1692i of FDCPA is smallest geographic area that is relevant for determining venue in court system in which case is filed. As such, for cases brought in Indiana, defendant was required to bring its debt collection action in plaintiff’s township small claims court. This en banc opinion replaced earlier panel opinion that had upheld Dist. Ct.’s dismissal of plaintiff’s action.