28 U.S.C. § 1391

Law changed since Pub. L. 101-650 (Dec. 1, 1990) removed a plaintiff’s residence as an independent ground for general diversity venue.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action in the district where all plaintiffs reside, including any division of that district.

Simpson v. Quality Oil Co., Inc. · filed 1989-10-25(a)

Venue in this case is controlled by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). This section permits a civil action founded only on diversity to be brought in any of three possible districts: the district where all plaintiffs reside, the district where all defendants reside, or the district in which the claim arose. ... Venue in this case is exclusively controlled by § 1391(a), and is proper in the Indianapolis division of the Southern District of Indiana.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In diversity cases, § 1391(a) permits venue where all plaintiffs reside, and § 1391(c)’s definition of a corporate defendant’s residence does not limit that option.

Strick Corp. v. A. J. F. Warehouse Distributors, Inc. · filed 1982-02-25(a), (c)

In such cases, section 1391(c) does not impose venue requirements more restrictive than the alternative bases set forth in section 1391(a); instead, it simply provides an expanded definition of a corporate defendant’s “residence” which may be relied upon when venue is sought to be established on the basis of the residence of all defendants under section 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action in the judicial district where all plaintiffs reside.

Kirksey v. Beauchesne · filed 1951-06-08(a)

In the present case, the plaintiff brings his action in the District of Massachusetts in which he resides. The venue requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 is satisfied, and there is no necessity for consent or waiver on the part of the defendants.

Law changed since Pub. L. 89-714 (Nov. 2, 1966) added the district where the claim arose as a general venue option, ending the residence-only rule. Pub. L. 101-650 (Dec. 1, 1990) removed a plaintiff’s residence as an independent ground for general diversity venue.

Section 1391 requires a diversity action to be brought in a district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.

Shall v. Henry · filed 1954-03-05(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1391 provides that a civil action founded only on diversity of citizenship may be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside. The record discloses that plaintiff was a resident of California and that of the defendants only one was a resident of Illinois. Defendants Henry, Stiefel and Palermo all resided in other states. Consequently, if the point was properly and timely raised, the court was without jurisdiction to proceed against any of the defendants.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action only in a district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.

Drapkin v. Keene · filed 1955-02-10(a)

Section 1391(a) Title 28 U.S.C.A. provides that “A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may * * * be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Western District of New York therefore, like the Southern District, is not the proper venue.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) requires a diversity action to be brought where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, unless another law provides otherwise.

McNulty v. Heine · filed 1956-01-20(a)

The general venue provisions applicable in cases where federal jurisdiction is founded on diversity of citizenship are set out in Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and require, except as otherwise provided by law, that a civil action be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.

Law changed since Pub. L. 101-650 (Dec. 1, 1990) removed a plaintiff’s residence as an independent ground for general diversity venue.

Section 1391(a) does not allow an infant plaintiff to establish venue based solely on a guardian ad litem’s residence; venue depends on where the infant plaintiff or the defendant resides.

Blackwell v. Vance Trucking Company · filed 1956-03-05(a)

The question before the court, therefore, is this: can an infant residing in one state cause a guardian ad litem or next friend to be appointed in another state for the purpose of bringing suit in the second state and thereby create venue in the federal court in such- second state based solely on the residence of the guardian ad litem or next friend? I am of opinion that he cannot.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) places venue in a diversity action at the plaintiff’s residence when the defendants do not all reside in one state.

Pan American Fire & Casualty Company v. Revere · filed 1960-09-30(a)

Because of the Wisconsin defendant, there is no one district or state in which “all defendants reside” and the only proper venue is that of the plaintiff.

Law changed since Pub. L. 89-714 (Nov. 2, 1966) added the district where the claim arose as a general venue option, ending the residence-only rule. Pub. L. 101-650 (Dec. 1, 1990) removed a plaintiff’s residence as an independent ground for general diversity venue.

In a diversity action, venue is proper only in a district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, including defendants who have not been served.

Shelley v. Maccabees · filed 1961-02-23(a)

Since jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship, the action could “be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Since all defendants (served or named) did not reside in a judicial district in Michigan, venue there was improper; the action could not have been brought there and consequently it may not be transferred there.

Law changed since Pub. L. 101-650 (Dec. 1, 1990) removed a plaintiff’s residence as an independent ground for general diversity venue.

Under § 1391(a), venue in a diversity action lies in a district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.

Industrial Waxes, Inc. v. International Railways of Central America · filed 1961-04-26(a)

Section 1391(a) provides that suits “be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.” ... This attack upon venue must be upheld, since admittedly the plaintiffs are residents of Ohio, the defendants IRCA and Wilier, residents of New Jersey, and McGovern is a resident of Massachusetts.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391 permits a diversity action in the district where the plaintiff resides and treats a corporation doing business in a district as a resident there for venue purposes.

Trussell v. Bear Manufacturing Co. · filed 1963-03-09(a), (c)

The jurisdiction of this Court is founded only on diversity of citizenship and' the jurisdictional amount and thus, may be brought in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a). The venue is proper. 28 U.S.C. §'• 1391(c).

Law changed since Pub. L. 89-714 (Nov. 2, 1966) added the district where the claim arose as a general venue option, ending the residence-only rule. Pub. L. 101-650 (Dec. 1, 1990) removed a plaintiff’s residence as an independent ground for general diversity venue.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action to be brought only in a district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.

O'Shatz v. Bailey · filed 1963-08-16(a)

The applicable test is 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), which reads: ... “A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.” ... For the reasons stated above, the motion of defendant Bailey for dismissal is denied and the action, as regards defendant Dobbs only, is severed and transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Law changed since Pub. L. 101-650 (Dec. 1, 1990) removed a plaintiff’s residence as an independent ground for general diversity venue.

In a diversity case, venue is proper in the district where the plaintiff resides when the defendant is amenable to process there.

Wisconsin Metal & Chemical Corp. v. DeZurik Corp. · filed 1963-09-26(c)

Defendant’s third ground for its motion, that venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) is also without merit. A diversity case may be commenced in any District where plaintiff or defendant resides. Plaintiff is a resident of Wisconsin and hence, having found defendant amenable to process under § 262.05(5), Wisconsin Statutes, the case is properly in this District.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity action in the district where the plaintiff resides.

Selsby v. Vecchione · filed 1963-04-04(a)

Venue in this District is not “wrong” because plaintiff is a resident here (28 U.S. C. § 1391(a)).

Law changed since Pub. L. 89-714 (Nov. 2, 1966) added the district where the claim arose as a general venue option, ending the residence-only rule.

Section 1391 does not provide venue for common law claims in a district where neither all plaintiffs nor all defendants reside.

New Park Mining Company v. Cranmer · filed 1963-11-01

Venue as to the common law causes of action asserted against these defendants cannot be based upon the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, since this district is not one within which all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.

Law changed since Pub. L. 101-650 (Dec. 1, 1990) removed a plaintiff’s residence as an independent ground for general diversity venue.

Section 1391 permits venue in a diversity action arising from an automobile collision where all plaintiffs reside, where all defendants reside, or where the collision occurred.

Granger v. Kemm, Inc. · filed 1966-02-02(a), (c), (f)

Applying this statute to the case at bar, it is evident that this action must be brought in the District of Connecticut where the plaintiffs reside or in the Middle District of Pennsylvania where the collision occurred. It cannot be instituted in the Eastern District of this Commonwealth because neither all the plaintiffs nor all the defendants reside or do business here and the accident did not happen within its borders.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action to be filed in the district where the plaintiff resides or where all defendants reside.

Kaiser v. Mayo Clinic · filed 1966-11-15(a)

Since this is a diversity action, plaintiff had a choice under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) of laying venue in the judicial district where he resides (Illinois) or in the district where all defend ... ants reside (Minnesota). Thus venue in Illinois was permissible.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action where all plaintiffs reside or where the claim arose; a libel or slander claim arises where it was published.

Jaffe v. Dolan · filed 1967-03-03(a)

The plaintiff is a resident of the State of New Jersey. The claim arose in the State of New Jersey. A claim for libel or slander arises in the state where it is published. Buckley v. New York Post Corp., Second Circuit, January 10, 1967, 373 F.2d 175. Therefore, venue could properly have been laid in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action in the judicial district where all plaintiffs reside.

Local 15 of Independent Workers of Noble County, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · filed 1967-03-03(a)

Contrary to defendants’ position, venue in a case founded solely on diversity of citizenship is proper in the judicial district where all plaintiffs reside, as well as where all defendants reside. 28 U.S. C. § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For a diversity action, § 1391(a) permits initial venue in a district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.

Miller v. Steinbach · filed 1967-04-03(a)

Venue is only initially proper in the district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) (1964). In the case at bar, plaintiff is a New York resident and neither defendant resides in the same district so that venue for this cause of action was only proper in this district.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity-based Rule 22 interpleader action only in a district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire · filed 1967-04-10(a)

Third, State Farm could not have invoked it in light of venue and service of process limitations. Whereas statutory inter-pleader may be brought in the district where any claimant resides (28 U. S. C. § 1397), Rule interpleader based upon diversity of citizenship may be brought only in the district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside (28 U. S. C. § 1391 (a)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action to be brought in the district where the plaintiff resides.

Time, Inc. v. Manning · filed 1966-11-09(a)

Since Manning is a resident of New Orleans, venue in the Eastern District of Louisiana is clearly proper under section 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity case, § 1391 permits venue in a district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.

Rosen v. Sohn · filed 1968-08-20(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1391 provides that where jurisdiction is founded upon diversity of citizenship, venue is proper “in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.” Since all defendants do not reside in the same district, the case is not properly transferrable to either.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity action in the district where the plaintiff resides.

Potter's Photographic Applications Co. v. Ealing Corporation · filed 1968-10-11(a)

As Ealing conceded in its memorandum filed June 17, 1968, venue is therefore properly located in this court since the principal place of business of the plaintiff is in Nassau County, within this district.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action to be brought where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside or where the claim arose.

Ryer v. Harrisburg Kohl Brothers, Inc. · filed 1969-09-08(a)

The present action could clearly have been brought in the Middle District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), since ... The defendants, of course, are all Pennsylvania residents and the action arose there.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action to be brought in the district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside or where the claim arose.

Grey v. Continental Marketing Associates, Inc. · filed 1970-06-22(a)

The suit being one in which federal court jurisdiction is founded solely upon diversity of citizenship venue would be proper either in the judicial district in which all plaintiffs or all defendants reside or in the district in which the claim arose. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Since the only plaintiff in this action resides in the Northern District of Georgia, it appears that venue in this district is not improper.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action only where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside or where the claims arose, and applies to transitory actions.

Gorman v. King · filed 1970-09-14(a)

The defendant’s argument that the venue of this action is improper, however, must be sustained. 28 U.S. C. Sec. 1391(a), provides: “A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or in which the claims arose.” ... In my opinion, Sec. 1391(a) prohibits the bringing of this action in the eastern district of Wisconsin, since the plaintiffs reside in the states of New York, Washington and Wisconsin, while the sole defendant is . a resident of Michigan. In addition, Sec. 1391 applies only to transitory actions, while the present action appears to be one of a local nature.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (a) permits venue where all plaintiffs reside or the claim arose, while subsection (c) defines a corporation’s residence without limiting those alternatives.

Campbell v. Triangle Corporation · filed 1972-01-27(a), (c)

Plaintiff resides in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the claim arose here; therefore, venue is proper. Triangle apparently assumes that subsection (c) of the venue statute supercedes subsection (a) so that a corporation can only be sued where it is incorporated, licensed or doing business regardless of where all the plaintiffs in a diversity action reside. This reading of the venue statute is clearly erroneous. Subsection (c) defines a corporation’s residence for purposes of venue; it does not limit venue, in a case where a corporation is a defendant, to the corporation’s residence if the plaintiffs can satisfy the requirement of subsection (a) which was done in the case before us.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) does not permit venue in a diversity action where neither the plaintiff nor the defendants reside in the district.

Willametz v. Susi · filed 1972-01-27(a)

The venue of this diversity action was not properly laid in this district when the complaint was filed, since neither the plaintiff nor the defendants were residents of this district. 28 U.S. C. § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action to be brought where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or where the claim arose.

Junior Spice, Incorporated v. Turbotville Dress, Inc. · filed 1972-03-09(a)

In view of our conclusion that the Oshiraks must be considered Kansas residents for purposes of this case, then the Eastern District is not a judicial district in which all of the defendants reside (§ 1391(a)); moreover, all defendants do not reside in different districts within the state (§ 1392(a)). Therefore venue cannot properly be laid in the Eastern District and exists only in the Middle District where the cause of action arose.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action where all plaintiffs or defendants reside or where the claim arose, and subsection (b) does not alter that venue choice.

Walker v. Kawasaki Motors Corp. · filed 1973-10-30(a), (b)

It is further the opinion of the Court that defendant’s contention that venue is improper is without merit. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391 provides in pertinent part that: “(a) A civil action wherein jurisdiction, is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in the judicial district where all the plaintiffs or all the defendants reside, or in which the claim arose.” Not only does the plaintiff reside within this judicial district, but it is also alleged that the claim upon which he seeks relief arose here. We do not believe that § 1391(b) alters plaintiff’s choice of venue.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity action where all plaintiffs reside or where the claim arose.

Vasquez v. Falcon Coach Co., Inc. · filed 1974-06-12(a)

Venue in this case is founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) which provides : “A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose.” The cause of action, if any, arose in North Dakota, and the plaintiff resides therein.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action in the district where all plaintiffs reside, even when a conflicting state venue rule would close the state courts.

Miller v. Davis · filed 1974-11-26(a)

Kentucky is Appellants’ residence, so that the federal statute gives the Kentucky federal courts venue to adjudicate these claims. Heeding federal venue provisions despite a conflicting state door-closing rule is appropriate when the state rule itself stems from venue considerations rather than substantive state policies.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a civil action in a district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or where the claim arose.

Tillman v. Eattock · filed 1974-12-10(a)

It is clear that venue in this Court is factually proper, inasmuch as a civil action may be brought in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity action in the district where the plaintiff resides.

Irving Trust Company v. Smith · filed 1972-10-12(a)

Venue is proper in this diversity action since the plaintiff resides here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity action where all plaintiffs reside, all defendants reside, or the claim arose.

Peebles v. Murray · filed 1976-04-16(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), where the action is based solely upon diversity of citizenship as it is here, an action may be brought only in the district where all plaintiffs, or all defendants reside, or in the district in which the claim arose. The Central District for the District of California is not the proper place of venue under § 1391(a); plaintiff is a Kansas resident, and defendant Murray is a resident of Canada rather than of California. The district in which the claim arose would appear to be Missouri rather than California.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity action, § 1391(a) permits venue where all plaintiffs reside even if the defendants do not reside there under § 1391(c).

Miles v. Charles E. Smith Companies · filed 1975-10-31(a)

But the fact that Maryland cannot therefore “be regarded as the residence” of either defendant herein “for venue purposes”, as provided by § 1391(c), does not destroy the venue in this case under § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391 permits venue in a diversity action in the district where the plaintiff resides.

Berryhill v. Marshall Exploration, Inc. · filed 1976-09-02(a)

Venue is proper since plaintiff is domiciled here. 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity action, venue is proper where all plaintiffs reside.

Carter v. Massey · filed 1977-03-04(a)

Venue has been challenged by all defendants pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3). In a civil action where jurisdiction is based solely on diversity of citizenship, as is the case here, venue is proper where all plaintiffs reside. 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The motions challenging venue will be denied.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity action, § 1391 permits venue in the judicial district where all plaintiffs reside.

Kurtz v. Draur · filed 1977-06-17(a)

Since plaintiff resides in Pennsylvania, venue was properly laid in Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity action, § 1391(a) makes venue proper where the plaintiff resides, where all defendants reside, or where the claim arose.

Haire v. Miller · filed 1977-09-30(a)

For this case venue is proper in either Mississippi, where the plaintiff resides, or in Indiana, where all the defendants reside ... and where the accident occurred.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action in the judicial district where all plaintiffs reside.

Corke v. Sameiet M. S. Song of Norway, Royal Caribbean Cruise Line A/s Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., and Per · filed 1978-03-07(a)

Since jurisdiction was premised on diversity of citizenship, the Western District of New York was, for venue purposes, a proper district within which to commence the action because appellant resided in Rochester, New York.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action in the district where all plaintiffs reside, even when the defendants and the events giving rise to the claim are in another state.

Rhea v. Muskogee General Hospital · filed 1978-07-25(a)

Here, plaintiff originally filed her action in California, where “all plaintiffs” reside. ... It is clear, therefore, that the California District Court, like this court, had subject matter jurisdiction over the action and that venue was proper in that forum.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity case in the district where all plaintiffs reside.

Turner v. McClain · filed 1978-10-31(a)

Jurisdiction here is founded solely on diversity of citizenship, and the case was brought in the district in which all plaintiffs reside. Venue is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity action where all plaintiffs reside, all defendants reside, or the claim arose.

Cunningham v. Cunningham · filed 1979-09-26(a)

In a diversity action, proper jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) lies only in those judicial districts where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or where the claim arose. Applied to the facts in this case, venue would be proper in either the Northern District of Illinois (where the plaintiff resides) or the Western District of Michigan (where the defendant resides and where the injury occurred).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) limits venue in a diversity action to a district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or where the claim arose.

Alderman v. Chrysler Corp. · filed 1979-11-02(a)

The Court notes that venue does not lie in this judicial district. ... 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) provides that “[a] civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose.” In this case the accident occurred, and thus the claim arose, in Charlotte County, Virginia.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue for a diversity action in a district where all plaintiffs reside.

Moore v. Conway · filed 1979-12-26(a)

Section 1406(a) is inapplicable in the present situation since venue in this diversity action exists in this district where all of the plaintiffs (now plaintiff) reside. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity action, § 1391(a) permits venue in the district where the plaintiff resides, all defendants reside, or the claim arose.

Sherman v. Moore · filed 1980-04-22(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), the venue statute applicable in the case at bar, since jurisdiction is founded only on diversity, venue is proper in the district where plaintiff resides or where all of the defendants reside or where the claim arose. In this action, the claim arose in Greene County, where defendants reside, and plaintiff, as has been stated, is a citizen of New Jersey. Thus, venue is improper in this District.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In an action based solely on diversity jurisdiction, venue is proper in the judicial district where all plaintiffs reside.

Fleming v. Apollo Motor Homes, Inc. · filed 1980-07-02(a)

... and consequently may “be brought only in the judicial district where all the plaintiffs . . . reside . . . 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). The Flemings assert they are residents of Durham County, North Carolina, Complaint ¶ 1, a part of the Middle District of North Carolina. Safford does not question that assertion. Venue is therefore proper.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In an action based solely on diversity of citizenship, § 1391 permits venue in the district where the plaintiff resides.

McGovern v. Blaha · filed 1980-09-26(a)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, this being an action brought in this court solely on account of diversity of citizenship and this being the judicial district wherein plaintiff resides.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity action against a corporation, § 1391(a) permits venue where all plaintiffs reside, and § 1391(c) does not limit that choice.

Galaxy International, Inc. v. White Stores, Inc. · filed 1980-11-14(a), (c)

We do not find it necessary to resolve the factual question of whether or not White is doing business in this judicial district because we believe that the defendant erred when it read section 1391(c) in isolation. Section 1391(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that “[a] civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may ... be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose.” Subject matter jurisdiction in the present case rests solely on diversity of citizenship, and the plaintiff resides in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity action, § 1391(a) permits venue where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside or where the claim arose.

Aluminal Industries, Inc. v. Newtown Commercial Associates · filed 1980-11-18(a)

A review of the pleadings in the instant, action shows that none of the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) are present; neither all plaintiffs nor all defendants reside in this district, ... and the cause of action, property damage to plaintiffs’ premises in Connecticut, arose outside this district. ... Accordingly, venue does not properly lie in this district.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity suit in a district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside.

Driscoll v. New Orleans Steamboat Company · filed 1981-01-08(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1391, regulating venue, provides that a diversity suit may be brought in the district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside. This was a proper venue for the suit, since the sole plaintiff resided in that district.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity action, § 1391(a) permits venue where all plaintiffs reside, all defendants reside, or the claim arose.

Mead Corp. v. Oscar J. Boldt Construction Co. · filed 1981-02-04(a)

Applying this statute to the facts set forth above, the Court concludes that the present litigation could have been commenced either in Dayton, where Mead, the only plaintiff resides, in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, at Milwaukee, where both defendants reside, or in the Western District of Michigan, Northern Division, at Marquette, where the claim arose.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a district where all plaintiffs reside and the claim arose.

Melancon v. Texaco, Inc. · filed 1981-03-31(a)

Venue is properly laid in the Eastern District of Louisiana, because all plaintiffs reside herein and the claim arose herein. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity action, § 1391(a) permits venue in the district where all plaintiffs reside, even if the defendant does not reside there.

Snyder v. Hampton Industries, Inc. · filed 1981-07-31(a)

Consequently, venue is to be determined under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Under that section, venue is proper: (1) where all the plaintiffs reside; or (2) where all the defendants reside; or (3) where the claim arose. Both of the plaintiffs reside in Maryland. Accordingly, venue is proper in this District, notwithstanding that the defendant may not “reside” in this District within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity action in the district where the plaintiff resides.

Rosemarie T. Schwilm, Administratrix of the Estate of Carrol A. Schwilm, Deceased v. Thomas J. Holbrook, M.D. And Cabell · filed 1981-09-28(a)

In this action, plaintiff resides in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and venue is proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity action where all plaintiffs reside, all defendants reside, or the claim arose.

Neff Athletic Lettering Co. v. Walters · filed 1981-10-16(a)

In addition, venue of the action is proper in this Court. In a diversity action, venue is proper “where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside or in which the claim arose.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) (emphasis added). In the instant case, plaintiff is a resident of Greenville, Ohio, which is within the Southern District of Ohio.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity action, § 1391(a) permits venue where the defendant resides or where a corporate plaintiff does business and thus resides.

AMF, INC. v. Computer Automation, Inc. · filed 1982-02-23(a)

Applying this statute to the facts set forth above, the Court concludes that the present litigation could have been commenced either in Dayton, where the Plaintiff is doing business, and thus resides, ... or in the Central District of California, where the Defendant resides.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action in the district where the plaintiff corporation resides.

Cinema Systems, Inc. v. Lab Methods Corp. · filed 1982-08-12(a)

Inasmuch as Cinema is incorporated in Illinois, venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action to be brought in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides.

ERIE PRESS SYSTEMS, ETC. v. Shultz Steel Co. · filed 1982-10-14(a)

Venue for this lawsuit brought where the plaintiff resides is entirely proper under Section 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a district where all remaining plaintiffs reside.

Wright v. Newman · filed 1982-05-14(a)

Thus, under § 1391(a), venue would be proper only in Missouri. However, plaintiff, Theodore F. Wright, has moved for dismissal of his claim against the defendants, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.Pro. The Court finds that the motion of Theodore F. Wright should be granted. Accordingly, as all remaining plaintiffs reside in this judicial district, venue is properly laid herein.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a district where all plaintiffs reside.

Kotsonis v. Superior Motor Express · filed 1982-05-26(a)

Viewing venue as between the defendants/third party plaintiffs and the third party defendant, venue originally would have been proper here since defendants/third party plaintiffs are all residents of North Carolina. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391 permits venue in a diversity action where the plaintiff resides or where the defendants reside.

Hotel Constructors, Inc. v. Seagrave Corp. · filed 1982-07-28

Venue is proper in this district because plaintiff resides in Illinois for venue purposes, and this action could have been brought in the Southern District of New York, which has proper venue and jurisdiction because defendants reside there under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1391.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity action in the district where the plaintiff resides.

Santana v. Holiday Inns, Inc., Gene Johnson, Randy Scheets, Bruce Faltin as Employees Holiday Inns, Inc. · filed 1982-08-17(a)

Because Santana is a resident of Arizona, venue was proper in the District Court for the District of Arizona. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits an action founded only on diversity of citizenship in a district where all plaintiffs reside, all defendants reside, or the claim arose.

Jahan Co. v. Dakota Industries, Inc. · filed 1983-02-03(a)

Thus, venue is controlled by section 1391(a) which states that “[a] civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Because all plaintiffs reside in New Jersey, venue is proper in the District of New Jersey.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action to be filed in a district where all plaintiffs reside.

Wilmot H. Simonson Co. v. Green Textile Associates, Inc. · filed 1983-02-04(a)

In the instant case, it is admitted that plaintiff WHS-111, is an Illinois corporation. It is thus deemed to reside in Illinois for venue purposes as a party plaintiff. As it filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, venue is proper in this district under § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue where the plaintiff corporation resides and the parties’ agreement places the transaction.

G.H. Miller & Co. v. Hanes · filed 1983-06-28(a)

Because plaintiff is an Illinois corporation which therefore is deemed to be an Illinois resident and because the agreement places the situs of the transaction in Illinois, venue is proper in this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action in a judicial district where all plaintiffs reside.

Robb Container Corp. v. Sho-Me Co. · filed 1983-07-06(a)

Jurisdiction in this matter is based upon diversity of citizenship, and Robb as plaintiff resides in this district. Venue in this district is therefore proper, and insofar as defendants’ motion to dismiss asserted that venue was improper, it is denied.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity action, § 1391(a) permits venue where the plaintiff resides, where all defendants reside, or where the claim arose.

Stevens Yachts of Annapolis, Inc. v. American Yacht Charters, Inc. · filed 1983-09-23(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) venue would be in Texas only if the plaintiff or all defendants resided there, or if the claim arose there.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When diversity defendants reside in different districts, § 1391(a) permits venue where the claim arose or the plaintiff resides; the complaint must provide enough facts to establish venue.

Data General Corp. v. Computerized Industries, Inc. · filed 1983-11-04(a)

Thus, because plaintiff is a Massachusetts corporation and not all the defendants are from the same district, venue would be appropriate only in the district in which the cause of action arose or in the district in which the plaintiff resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Although it seems likely that the cause of action arose within this judicial district, the present complaint is plainly insufficient to establish that this is the case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity action, venue is proper where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or where the claim arose; a corporation resides where it is incorporated, licensed to do business, or doing business.

Midwest Precision Services, Inc. v. PTM Industries Corp. · filed 1983-11-30(a), (c)

When federal jurisdiction is founded solely upon diversity of citizenship, venue is proper in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). A corporation, for venue purposes, is a resident of its state of incorporation, of any state where it is licensed to do business, and of any state where it is doing business. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). In this case, Midwest, the only plaintiff, is incorporated in Illinois and doing business in the Northern District of Illinois. PTM, the only defendant, is incorporated and doing business in Massachusetts. The claim arose in Massachusetts. Venue, therefore, is proper in the transferor court (Northern District of Illinois) and the transferee court (District of Massachusetts).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391 permits venue for a diversity interpleader action in a district where the plaintiff bank resides and issued the disputed letter of credit.

American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Hamilton Industries International, Inc. · filed 1984-02-22(a), (c)

Venue is proper with respect to the interpleader action in this District because ANB “resides” here and issued the letter of credit in this District.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) supports venue in a diversity action where all plaintiffs reside in the district and the claims arose there.

Miller v. Cudahy Co. · filed 1984-08-13(a)

Venue is proper in this Court because all of the plaintiffs reside in this judicial district and the claims arose here, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391 permits venue in a diversity action where the plaintiff is deemed to reside or where all defendants reside.

Walter E. Heller & Co. v. James Godbe Co. · filed 1984-11-08(a), (c)

Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois, the transferor district, since it is where Heller is deemed to reside. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and (c). Venue is also proper in the Northern District of Texas, the transferee district, where all the defendants reside. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action in a district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or where the claim arose.

Butler Seafood, Inc. v. Gowdy · filed 1984-12-21(a)

As such, venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Under this statute, a diversity action can be brought “only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose.” ... In short, there are no allegations in the complaint which would support a finding that venue could be proper in the Southern District of Florida.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action to be brought in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides.

Lehman v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc. · filed 1985-04-03(a)

Therefore, venue was properly laid in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), and this Court must apply the same choice of law rules Judge Williams would have applied — that is, California’s rules.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity action, venue is proper where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or where the claim arose.

Bernie v. Waterfront Ltd. Dividend Housing Ass'n · filed 1985-04-25(a)

In a diversity action, venue is only proper in the judicial district “where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or where the claim arose.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). ... venue would thus not be proper in the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity action in the judicial district where all plaintiffs reside.

Excelite Corp. v. Custom Vanities, Inc. (In Re Excelite Corp.) · filed 1985-06-05(a)

With respect to a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court whose jurisdiction is based solely upon diversity of citizenship, venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). This provision states that venue is proper “in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Because Excelite is the sole plaintiff and is a resident of the Northern District of Georgia, the instant adversary proceeding is appropriately situated in the Northern District of Georgia.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity action in a district where the plaintiff resides and the cause of action arose.

Roundball Enterprises, Inc. v. Richardson · filed 1985-09-11(a)

In any event, venue in this Court is clearly proper in that plaintiff resides here and the cause of action arose here. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity action, § 1391 permits venue where all plaintiffs reside, all defendants reside, or the claim arose.

Van Gelder v. Taylor · filed 1985-11-13(a)

Where the corporation can sue for venue purposes is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Where jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship, venue is proper in a judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside or where the claim arose. As such, venue in this Court is improper insofar as not one of the three requirements of § 1391 is satisfied within this district.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity action in a district where all defendants reside or all plaintiffs reside, or where the claim arose.

Centaur Insurance v. Mission Insurance Group, Inc. · filed 1985-11-14(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) sets forth the districts where venue is proper. § 1391(a) states that when a plaintiff’s action is founded solely on diversity of citizenship, proper venue lies in those judicial districts where all defendants or plaintiffs reside, or where the claim arose. Applied to the facts in this case, venue is proper in either the Northern District of Illinois (where plaintiff resides) or the Central District of California (where all defendants reside).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action to be brought in a district where all plaintiffs reside.

Reed v. Brown · filed 1985-11-25(a)

In that this is a diversity action, venue is proper in any district in which all plaintiffs reside. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Reed is the only plaintiff in this case, and is a resident of the State of Nevada. Venue, therefore, is technically proper in this district.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity action in the judicial district where all plaintiffs reside or where the claims arose.

Dalton v. J.H. Carr & Sons · filed 1986-02-21(a)

Where jurisdiction in a civil action is founded only on diversity of citizenship, venue is proper in the judicial district in which all plaintiffs reside or in which the claims arose. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). In the instant case, therefore, venue in the District of Montana is proper. The motions to dismiss on venue grounds are without merit.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action in a district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or where the claim arose.

John Buck Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co. · filed 1986-04-11(a)

JBC’s claim could have been brought in the Central District of California. Since jurisdiction is founded on diversity of citizenship, this action is properly brought in any judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1391 permits venue in a diversity action in the district where all plaintiffs reside.

Gudaitis v. Adomonis · filed 1986-09-03(a)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue in a diversity action lies in “the judicial district where all plaintiffs reside or all defendants reside or in which the claim arose.” Since plaintiff resides here venue is proper.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In a diversity action, § 1391 permits venue in a district where all plaintiffs reside, all defendants reside, or the claim arose.

Greiner v. American Motor Sales Corp. · filed 1986-10-20

At the outset, it should be noted that this case could have been brought in the Southern District of Texas, since this cause of action arose in that District, and all plaintiffs reside there.