28 U.S.C. § 1391

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Hoffman v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Cattles v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Martin v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Laughter v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Sherman v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where the plaintiff had the surgery at issue.

Hodge v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Shrum v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where the plaintiffs’ medical devices were implanted.

Goods v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Frierson v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Blevins v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) allows venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Alford v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where a plaintiff underwent the surgery at issue.

Tate v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Proudfoot v. C.R. Bard, Inc. · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where the medical device at issue was implanted.

Kerby v. C.R. Bard, Inc. · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred.

Prescott v. C. R. Bard, Inc. · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred.

Comer v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Landers v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where the plaintiffs’ devices were implanted.

Campbell v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred.

Boyd v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Lynch v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where the surgery at issue took place.

Shaffer v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including the surgery at issue in these claims.

Moffett v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Mcdowell v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Enriquez v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Ingram v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Shaw v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where the plaintiffs underwent the disputed implantation procedures.

Spencer v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including the plaintiffs’ implantation surgeries.

Byrd v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where the implant surgery underlying the claim took place.

Yohn v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Aguilar v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Arkadyey v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Russell v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Lara v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where plaintiffs underwent the implantation surgery giving rise to their claims.

Griffin v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

Plaintiffs request this Court to transfer the out-of-state plaintiffs to the jurisdictions in which they had surgery for the implantation of their Bard inferior vena cava filter. See Br. in Supp. of Mot. (“Br.”) 7. The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where the plaintiffs’ implantation surgeries took place.

Renteria v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.”

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred.

Addis v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where the plaintiffs underwent the surgeries at issue.

Reyes v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred.

McKenna v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Wheeler v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Mlsna v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Roth v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Zulewski v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where the plaintiff underwent the surgery at issue.

Chapa-Mendez v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Newsom v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-31(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Golding v. Trump · filed 2020-09-01(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that all of the defendants reside in New York or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claim arose in this district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1), (2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where the acts or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.

Morales v. Stanton · filed 2020-09-01(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district because the alleged acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred at the Snyder County Prison located in Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania, which is in this district.

Section 1391(b)(1) allows venue based on a defendant’s residence when all defendants reside in the same state; (b)(2) allows venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Gallagher v. Vokey · filed 2020-09-01(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because none of the defendants are residents of Texas, and many of the events giving rise to this action took place outside of this Court’s district, venue under § 1391(b)(1) or (b)(2) is not applicable.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including the implantation surgeries at issue here.

Fitzgerald v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-09-02(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

(PC) Pitts v. Matevousian · filed 2020-09-02(b)

Because none of the defendants reside in the Eastern District of California, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the District of Colorado, venue for this action is proper only in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Arnett v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-09-02(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where the medical device at issue was implanted.

LEATHERWOOD v. C R BARD INC · filed 2020-09-02(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

McPherson v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-09-02(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where the plaintiffs underwent the implant surgeries at issue.

Chase v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-09-02(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Collision Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corporation · filed 2020-09-02(b)(2)

Although Massachusetts is an inappropriate venue, the record contains sufficient facts to indicate that New Hampshire is the appropriate venue in which to litigate this matter as it is the jurisdiction where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Rembert v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-09-02(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Harper v. C.R. Bard Inc. · filed 2020-09-02(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Myers v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-09-02(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where the plaintiff’s surgery took place.

Ramos v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-09-02(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district connected to the defendants’ residence and the events underlying the claims.

Faire v. Okanogan County · filed 2020-09-03(b)

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Washington because a majority of Defendants reside there and the acts complained of occurred there. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state, or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Faison v. Davis · filed 2020-09-03(b)

No defendant is alleged to reside in, and none of the events or ... omissions giving rise to the complaint occurred in, the Northern District of California.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state, or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Evans v. Inch · filed 2020-09-04(b)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in the district “in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located” or where “a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred.” Given the allegations in Mr. Evans’s complaint, the Court finds that venue is proper in either the Northern or Middle District of Florida.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on where defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

DAKER v. HEAD · filed 2020-09-04(b)

Nothing in Plaintiff’s Objections suggests the Defendants in the transferred actions reside in the Southern District of Georgia or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the transferred claims occurred in the Southern District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation on the venue of the severed claims.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Jackson v. Acevedo · filed 2020-09-04(b)(2)

Venue for the severed claims is therefore proper in the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) allows venue in the district where the defendants reside or the claim arose.

Rhoads v. Mecosta County Jail · filed 2020-09-08(b)

The proper venue is in the judicial district where either all the defendants reside or where the claim arose. ... The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan is the proper venue, and the court will transfer this action for further proceedings.

Section 1391(b) places venue in the district where all defendants reside or where the claim arose.

Rhoads 504915 v. Mecosta County Jail · filed 2020-09-08(b)

The proper venue is in the judicial district where either all the defendants reside or where the claim arose. Al-Muhaymin v. Jones, 895 F.2d 1147, 1148 (6th Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Plaintiff has failed to allege that any of the acts, events, or omissions which form the basis of his lawsuit took place in this district. ... The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan is the proper venue, and the court will transfer this action for further proceedings.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the forum state, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if no other district is available, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Smith v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 2020-09-09(b)

As to any non-federal defendants, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) governs venue. That statute provides that venue is proper where “any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located” or “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” or “if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” Id. ... Neither has Smith provided any facts indicating that all defendants reside in the District of Columbia or would be subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia. And the acts and omissions Smith alleges also appear to have all occurred in New York. See Am. Compl. Thus, venue is improper in the District of Columbia.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Meyers Law PLLC v. Arik · filed 2020-09-09(b)(2)

Venue is proper in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or where a substantial part of the property that is subject to the dispute is situated. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... Here, the District of Arizona lacks significant contact with the activities alleged in the Complaint, and a substantial portion of the events that gave rise to this action occurred in the District of Nevada.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where all defendants are located and a substantial part of the events or property at issue is situated.

Suttle v. Calk · filed 2020-09-09(b)

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all of the defendants are located in the district, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the district, and a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in the district.

Section 1391 provides no basis for venue in a district with no connection to the parties or the alleged events.

Williams v. United States of America · filed 2020-09-09

There is no basis for venue in the Western District of Louisiana based on Section 1402 or the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391 provides no basis for venue in the Western District of Louisiana when the plaintiff resides and the alleged acts occurred in the Eastern District.

Williams v. United States · filed 2020-09-09

There is no basis for venue in the Western District of Louisiana based on Section 1402 or the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391 provides no basis for venue in a district where the parties do not reside and the alleged acts did not occur.

Williams v. USA · filed 2020-09-09

There is no basis for venue in the Western District of Louisiana based on Section 1402 or the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391(b) does not place venue for these civil rights claims in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

Herd v. Daniel · filed 2020-09-09(b)

After careful review, the Court finds proper venue for Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims does not lie in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including the receipt of unwanted text messages in a TCPA claim.

Jackson v. Euphoria Wellness, LLC · filed 2020-09-08(b)(2)

The Court cannot say that the receipt of unwanted text messages is not a substantial part of the events giving rise to a TCPA claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)–(3). Accordingly, venue is proper.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Chacon Jr v. Diaz · filed 2020-09-14(b)

In this case, the claim arose in Riverside County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court forthe Central District of California.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in the district where the events underlying the claims occurred.

Atkinson v. In the matter of the State of New York · filed 2020-09-14(b)(2)

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in this order, and in the order to show cause dated August 14, 2020, venue lies in the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in the district where the injury giving rise to the claim occurred.

JACOBS v. HILTON WORLDWIDE CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC. · filed 2020-09-17(b)(2)

Additionally, venue would have been proper in the District of Columbia given that the alleged injury occurred in that district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Ramey v. Lawrie · filed 2020-09-17(b)

In this case, with respect to Ramey’s claims concerning his state prosecution in Delaware County, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” took place in that county and within the venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in the district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

(PC)Gutierrez v. Diaz · filed 2020-09-18(b)(2)

Ironwood State Prison is located in Riverside County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff's action should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Gutierrez v. Diaz · filed 2020-09-18(b)

Therefore, plaintiffs action should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a judicial district where the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Farris v. Ruiz · filed 2020-10-13(b)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred at SVSP, which is located in this judicial district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Clay v. Doe · filed 2020-10-20(b)(2)

Under § 1404(a), transfer of the Great Meadow claims appears to be appropriate in this case because the events underlying these claims occurred in a county that falls within the Northern District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 112(a), and venue is therefore proper in the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits a civil action to be brought in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

(PC) Hill v. Ventura · filed 2020-10-21(b)(2)

The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In this case, the claim arose at Salinas Valley State Prison in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in the district where the acts or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.

Aul v. Correct Care Solutions · filed 2020-10-26(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district because the alleged acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred at SCI-Rockview, located in Centre County, Pennsylvania, which is in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) places venue in the district where the acts alleged in this action occurred.

Farha v. Foss · filed 2020-10-30(b)

Because the acts complained of occurred in HDSP, which lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California, see 28 U.S.C. § 84(d), venue properly lies in that district and not in this one, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a judicial district where the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Lopez v. Lake County Jail · filed 2020-10-30(b)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred at LCJ, which is located in this judicial district.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the judicial district where the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Stuckey v. Sturdevant · filed 2020-10-30(b)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim is alleged to have occurred at PBSP, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a civil rights claim occurred.

(HC) Jones v. Newsom · filed 2020-11-06(b)

The acts complained of in this complaint occurred at KVSP, which is in the Eastern District of California. Furthermore, many of the named defendants reside in the Eastern District of California. Therefore, if this is a civil rights complaint, venue properly lies in the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Bibb v. Malek and Malek · filed 2020-12-11(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s claims arose in Franklin County, Ohio, which is in the Southern District of Ohio, see 28 U.S.C. § 115, and thus venue does lie in that court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the judicial district where the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Hill v. Borba · filed 2020-12-15(b)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claim is alleged to have occurred in SVSP, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Hill v. Parin · filed 2020-12-15(b)(2)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claim is alleged to have occurred in SVSP, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the judicial district where the events giving rise to the claims allegedly occurred.

(PC) Hill v. Bright · filed 2020-12-15(b)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred at SVSP, which is located in this judicial district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Thomas v. Administration of Childrens Services · filed 2020-12-29(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Queens County, where Plaintiff resides and her claims arose. Moreover, the Family Court proceedings related to Plaintiff’s claims took place in Queens County. Queens County falls within the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 112(c), and venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Grasberg v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2020-12-29(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Queens County, which is within the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 112(c), and venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits a civil action in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

SIBLEY v. MITCHELL COUNTY CAMP INSTITUTION · filed 2021-01-06(b)(2)

Plaintiff complains about events occurring in Mitchell County, Georgia, which is within the Middle District of Georgia. 28 U.S.C. § 90(b)(5). Thus, venue is proper in that District.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits a civil action to be brought in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Carranza v. Diaz · filed 2021-01-12(b)(2)

In this case, the claim arose in Riverside County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Washington v. Lehigh County District Attorney's Office · filed 2021-01-12(b)(2)

In this case, with respect to Washington’s claims concerning his state prosecution in Lehigh County, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” took place in that county and within the venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where events giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred.

Asberry v. Florez · filed 2021-01-15(b)

Venue is proper because certain events giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred at SVSP, which is located in this judicial district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Mitchell v. Kim · filed 2021-01-15(b)(2)

Venue is proper because certain events giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred at SVSP, which is located in this judicial district.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Lippert v. Caballos-Galendo · filed 2021-03-02(b)

Therefore, the Court concludes venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

(PC)Juan Hernandez v. John Doe 1 · filed 2021-03-16(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is proper where defendants reside, or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. ... Because the incidents giving rise to plaintiff's claim occurred in Amador County, the Court finds it is in the interests of justice to transfer this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Local Rule 120(f) to the Sacramento Division.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Middlebrooks v. United States · filed 2021-04-06(b)(2)

Although venue is arguably proper here under § 1391(b)(1), because Plaintiff is detained in the District of New Jersey, and the events giving rise to his claims occurred there, under § 1391(b)(2), venue is also proper in the District of New Jersey.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

STAWARZ v. WEBB · filed 2021-04-14(b)(2)

Thus, while the Court cannot determine on the existing record the propriety of venue in the Western District pursuant to Section 1391(b)(1), venue assuredly is proper in the Middle District pursuant to Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Curry v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · filed 2021-04-30(b)

Therefore, under Section 1391, Plaintiff's action may be heard in a venue where all the defendants reside, or in the venue where the issue substantially arose, which here is the District of South Carolina.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Syas v. Calloway · filed 2021-07-14(b)(2)

The underlying events most likely occurred in Southampton (Suffolk County), New York, where Plaintiff resides. Suffolk County, New York falls within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a judicial district where the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Hill v. Perez · filed 2021-07-29(b)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claim is alleged to have occurred as SVSP, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391 permits venue in a judicial district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Bass v. Carr · filed 2021-08-02(b)(2)

The acts undergirding this action took place in Virginia Beach, Virginia, which the Norfolk Division encompasses, rendering venue appropriate there.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the district where the events giving rise to the action occurred.

Tillman v. Vargas · filed 2021-09-10(b)

Under § 1404(a), transfer is appropriate in this case because the underlying events occurred in Brooklyn, New York, where: Plaintiff resides, the child custody proceedings occurred, and many – if not all – of the defendants reside. As Brooklyn is in Kings County, which falls within the Eastern District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 112(a), venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Jones v. Jackie · filed 2021-09-15(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges that his claims arose outside this district, and he does not allege that Defendant resides in this district, venue does not appear to be proper in this district under § 1391(b)(1) or (2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Hill v. Mendosa · filed 2021-09-30(b)(2)

Venue is proper because the event giving rise to the claim is alleged to have occurred in SVSP, which is located in this judicial district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the suit occurred.

DUBOIS COUNTRY CLUB, LTD v. DEPOSITORS INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2021-10-29(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the acts giving rise to this suit occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

(PC) Rios v. Contra Costa Sheriff's Department · filed 2021-12-01(b)

Thus, this action should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the district where the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Berry v. Escobar 2307 · filed 2021-12-20(b)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the alleged claims occurred at the San Francisco County Jail, which is located in this judicial district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Ramani v. Facebook LLC · filed 2022-03-31(b)(2)

It appears that Plaintiff’s claims arose in Plaintiff’s home, located in Briarwood (Queens County), New York, which is in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). Accordingly, venue lies in the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Hooli v. Clerk Levy County Court · filed 2022-04-08(b)(2)

A civil action not founded solely on diversity of citizenship is properly brought in: “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Here, it appears that the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in Levy County, Florida and, more particularly, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a judicial district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Mikell v. The State of South Carolina · filed 2022-04-13(b)(2)

Thus, venue is proper in that District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Dickson v. Schenectady Family Court · filed 2022-05-06(b)(2)

The alleged underlying events occurred in Schenectady County, in the Northern District of New York. Venue is therefore proper in the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391’s venue requirements are satisfied where all events giving rise to the claims occurred in the proposed venue.

Garza v. McCamey County Hospital District · filed 2022-06-02(b)(2)

A district court is a venue where the action “might have been brought” if it satisfies the statutory venue requirements set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... All of the events giving rise to the Plaintiff’s claims occurred at the Hospital in Upton County, one of the counties served by the Midland/Odessa Division. ... Therefore, the Midland/Odessa Division is a venue where the action might have been brought.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Burke v. The United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York · filed 2022-06-07(b)(2)

While it is unclear whether this Court would be an appropriate venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Kings County, it is clear that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, even if venue may also be proper elsewhere.

Arrotta v. Ulster County Sheriffs Department/Employeesl · filed 2022-06-08(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that the John and Jane Doe Defendants reside in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Ulster County, venue would also be proper in Northern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Retzlaff v. Heartland Financial USA, Inc. · filed 2022-06-21(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that venue is proper here under either provision, because one defendant resides in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and the alleged events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, venue would also be proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin under Section 78aa and Section 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in the district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Lahood v. Oprihory · filed 2022-06-23(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the District of New Jersey, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Marquez v. Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center · filed 2022-07-05(b)(2)

Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper not in this District but instead in the Southern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Balash-Ioannidou v. Contour Mortgage Corporation · filed 2022-07-25(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that Defendants reside in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at Queens County, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Pena-Sanchez v. New York City · filed 2022-07-26(b)(2)

The events underlying the severed claims occurred in Queens County, which is within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Venue for the severed claims is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

(PC) Montalvo v. Ramirez · filed 2022-08-12(b)(2)

In this case, plaintiff’s claims arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Thus, this action should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Farrow v. Cordez · filed 2022-08-23(b)(2)

Venue of these actions is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the district where the events took place, that is, in the Western and Northern Districts of New York, respectively.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Farrow v. Plante · filed 2022-08-23(b)(2)

Venue of these actions is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the district where the events took place, that is, in the Western and Northern Districts of New York, respectively.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred.

Farrow v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision · filed 2022-08-23(b)(2)

Venue of these actions is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the district where the events took place, that is, in the Western and Northern Districts of New York, respectively.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Scales v. The Supreme Court of the United States · filed 2022-08-30(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Kings County, venue is also proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Hernandez v. Roche, Jr. · filed 2022-09-02(b)

Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events complained of occurred in El Paso, Texas.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Pellegrino v. County of Erie · filed 2022-09-06(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Western District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers the new civil action to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where the alleged actions occurred.

Stockton v. Wetzel · filed 2022-09-06(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate because all actions detailed in the amended complaint occurred within the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a judicial district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Parker v. U.S. Department of Justice · filed 2022-09-09(b)(2)

Venue for a civil action brought in federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... In this case, the events giving rise to the complaint occurred in Ashland, Kentucky, and potential defendants, such as employees at the prison, reside in that area.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Brown v. Donahue · filed 2022-11-28(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Western District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Zielinski v. Annucci · filed 2022-11-30(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Western District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Starr Indemnity and Liability Company v. Signature Flight Support Corporation · filed 2022-12-01(b)(2)

A civil action may be brought in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... Under this statute, Starr may have originally brought the action in the unofficial Southern Division where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits a civil action in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Moslem v. Michael Macklowitz, Esq. · filed 2023-03-02(b)(2)

Thus, it is clear that, under Section 1391(b)(2), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for this action.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits a civil action in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Ardeneh v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · filed 2023-03-08(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s claims arose in Massachusetts, which is in the District of Massachusetts. Accordingly, venue lies in the District of Massachusetts, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred.

Murphy v. Pollard · filed 2023-03-17(b)(2)

Venue would have been proper in the Eastern District because the alleged events took place there at Kettle Moraine in Plymouth, Wisconsin. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (venue is proper where a substantial part of events giving rise to a lawsuit occurred).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Reeves v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2023-05-09(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Brooklyn, venue is also proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Ahmad v. Girardi · filed 2023-05-11(b)(2)

Accordingly, under Section 1391(b)(2), venue lies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and in the interest of justice, this Court transfers this action to that court.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Cervantes v. Elsen · filed 2023-05-15(b)(2)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claim are alleged to have occurred at MADF, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Sowell v. Annucci · filed 2023-06-22(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s Cape May County arrest and criminal proceedings took place outside of the Southern District of New York, venue for his claims arising from those alleged events is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(2). As the events underlying those claims occurred in New Jersey, under Section 1391(b)(2), the District of New Jersey is the proper venue for any claims Plaintiff may have arising from those events.

Section 1391(b)(2) allows venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Crumble v. United States of America · filed 2023-08-07(b)(2)

Thus, while it is not clear that this court is a proper venue, under Section 1391(b)(1), for his claims under Bivens against those defendants, it is clear that the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania is a proper venue, under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Frazier v. Town of Islip Housing Authority · filed 2023-08-30(b)(2)

Accordingly, under Section 1391(b)(2), venue lies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and in the interest of justice, this Court transfers this action to that court.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Dyce v. Khelemsky · filed 2023-08-30(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Hardee v. Thomas · filed 2023-08-31(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that Defendants reside in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at Eastern CF, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Robertson v. Perkins · filed 2023-09-21(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Western District of Kentucky as the events occurred in Russell County, Kentucky.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the judicial district where the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Muhammad v. Martinez · filed 2023-09-22(b)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to Muhammad’s claims in his FAC are alleged to have occurred at CTF, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the judicial district where the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Muhammad v. Mendez · filed 2023-09-27(b)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to Muhammad’s claims in his FAC are alleged to have occurred at CTF, which is located in this judicial district.