28 U.S.C. § 1391

Section 1391 permits venue where the events at issue occurred.

Weiner v. Ocwen Financial Corporation · filed 2023-10-05(b)(2)

Plaintiff brought this action in a proper venue as this is where the events at issue occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

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

CHEBBANI v. SHOEMAKER · filed 2023-10-11(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district because the motor vehicle accident on October 31, 2019 occurred in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

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

Love v. John/Jane Does · filed 2023-11-15(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that the defendants reside in this judicial district and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at Wende, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Western 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.

Rivers v. Ingber · filed 2023-11-15(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that Defendant resides 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 Defendant’s Brooklyn office, 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.

Garcia v. Singer · filed 2023-12-13(b)(2)

Moreover, although it is not clear whether venue is proper in this District under Section 1391(b)(1), it is clear that venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Robinson v. Butler · filed 2024-01-02(b)(2)

Review of the complaint shows that the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims concerning the London, Warren, and Madison Correctional Institutions occurred in the Southern District of Ohio. Therefore, the venue for these claims is proper in the Southern District of Ohio. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Rivera v. DOCCS · filed 2024-01-04(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 in Oneida County, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of New York.

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) Page v. Navarrete · filed 2024-03-05(b)(2)

In this case, the claim arose in the City and County of San Francisco, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim 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.

Nobile v. All Womans Pavillion · filed 2024-03-07(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that any Defendant resides in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Forest Hills, Queens, 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.

(PC) Jacques v. Borrego · filed 2024-03-18(b)(2)

In this case, the claim arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California. ... Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

(PC) Lovell v. Sanchez · filed 2024-03-27(b)

In this case, the claim arose in Alameda County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim 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 a civil rights claim occurred.

(PC) Watts v. County of Colusa · filed 2024-03-27(b)

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

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

Walter v. Old No. 77 Hotel & Chandlery · filed 2024-03-28(b)(2)

Finally, venue would be proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana because the alleged injury occurred in New Orleans, which lies within that district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

(PC) Coffer v. Reyes · filed 2024-04-02(b)(2)

In this case, the claim arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim 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.

Bell v. Weinreb Management LLC · filed 2024-04-12(b)(2)

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

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

Janczuk v. United States of America (USA) · filed 2024-04-12(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 the MDC, 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.

Hankerson v. South Hospital Brooklyn New York · filed 2024-04-30(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that at least one defendant resides in this District and that venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(1) both here and in the Eastern District of New York, because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Brooklyn, 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.

Shandiz v. State of Texas · filed 2024-05-03(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Western District of Texas, 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 Texas, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b) places venue for claims about conditions of confinement in the district where the relevant events occurred.

Owino v. CoreCivic, Inc. · filed 2024-05-06(b)

So, the proper venue for any claims concerning his conditions of confinement while at Solano is the Eastern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue for prison conditions claims in the district where the alleged events occurred.

Tate v. Unknown · filed 2024-05-07(b)

So, the proper venue for any claims concerning his conditions of confinement while at Solano is the Eastern 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.

Williams v. Frisina · filed 2024-05-13(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 Wallkill 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 judicial district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Cole v. Arizona Department of Child Safety · filed 2024-05-24(b)(2)

Thus, while it is also clear that this court is not a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2), under that provision, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona is a proper venue for this action.

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

Adams v. Berkman · filed 2024-06-21(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 in Franklin County, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of New York.

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

Hill v. Tiku · filed 2024-06-27(b)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where the relevant events occurred.

Culpepper v. Covanta Energy Services, Inc. · filed 2024-07-12(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate in the Middle District of Pennsylvania because all relevant actions took place within the Middle District.

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

Smith v. Alameda County Sheriff Dept · filed 2024-07-15(b)

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

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

Hit and Miss, Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Long Beach · filed 2024-08-05(b)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Los Angeles County, which is within the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the district where the accident giving rise to the plaintiff’s injuries occurred.

Channin-Albanese v. J&P Ontime Inc. · filed 2024-08-19(b)

Although this action “was properly removed to the Southern District of New York pursuant to [28 U.S.C.] § 1441(a) because it was removed from a state court in the district,” Speedfit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc., 642 F. Supp. 3d 429, 442 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), it could have initially been brought in the Eastern District of New York: the parties are diverse, and plaintiff’s alleged injuries arise from an accident that occurred in that district, Dkt. 1-1 ¶¶ 1-3, 13; see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where all events underlying the action occurred.

Van Houwelingen v. The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center · filed 2024-08-21(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because all events occurred within the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

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

Maltese v. Heastie · filed 2024-09-13(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Northern 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 Northern 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, even if venue may also be proper elsewhere.

McKenzie v. Warren · filed 2024-09-24(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that Warren resides in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in 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.

Bey v. RocNation LLC · filed 2024-10-01(b)(2)

Even if the Court assumes that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Albany County, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of New York.

Section 1391(b) permits venue for prison-conditions claims in the district where the complained-of acts occurred.

(PC) Adams v. Solano State Prison · filed 2024-10-11(b)

Lastly, venue also properly lies in the Eastern District for Plaintiff's other claims ... challenging the conditions of confinement at SSP because that is where the acts ... complained of occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) makes venue improper in a district with no connection to the events giving rise to the claims.

Johnson v. McMahon · filed 2024-11-08(b)(2)

Nevertheless, it is clear that the conduct at issue took place in Mansfield, Ohio. Thus, Plaintiff's claims bear no relation whatsoever to the District of Nevada. Accordingly, the Court finds venue is not proper in the District of Nevada. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488.

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

Triplett v. Superintendent · filed 2024-11-21(b)(2)

Under the venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), the action clearly could have been brought in the Northern District of New York ... because that is where the events giving rise to his claims occurred.

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

Friedeberg v. Friedeberg · filed 2024-11-22(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the District of Connecticut, 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 Connecticut, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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

Friedeberg v. Meriam · filed 2024-11-27(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the District of Connecticut, 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 Connecticut, 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 claims occurred.

Macon v. Philadelphia MS Police Department · filed 2024-12-03(b)(2)

Because Plaintiffs allege that the events giving rise to their claims took place outside this district, venue is not proper here 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.

White v. F.B.I. Director · filed 2024-12-10(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to petitioner’s claims occurred in the Western District of Missouri, venue is proper there.

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

Youmans v. The Village of Hoosick Falls, NY Police Department · filed 2025-01-06(b)(2)

Thus, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and not this court, appears to be a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

(PC) Casias v. Tapia-Alcazar · filed 2025-01-07(b)

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 in Monterey County, which is in 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.

Drake v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc. · filed 2025-01-28(b)(2)

In addition, all the events giving rise to this suit occurred in Dallas, Texas, which is located in the Northern District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Drake v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2025-01-29(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because all the events giving rise to this suit occurred in Dallas, Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

(PS) Iliya v. County of Sacramento · filed 2025-02-13(b)

In his FAC, Plaintiff states that the venue is proper in the Eastern District of California because the matters took place entirely in this district. FAC at 2. All Defendants are also located in this district in Sacramento, California. See FAC at 2-3. Therefore, venue is proper 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.

Lurch Jr. v. The Supervising Officer That Directed Officers to Arrest the on Jan. 11, 2023 as well as Officers that Assi · filed 2025-05-12(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that the individual 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 in 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 the district where the alleged conduct occurred.

Gay v. Bonsecours Mercy Health · filed 2025-05-12(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Eastern District of Virginia, 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 Virginia, 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.

Metts v. United States · filed 2025-05-15(b)(2)

As Defendant correctly states, this case arises from events that occurred at the Durango-La Plata County Airport in Durango, Colorado, and Plaintiff could have originally filed suit in the District Court of Colorado, which is Colorado’s only judicial district. ... The court determines that Defendant has satisfied its burden of proving that the case could originally have been brought in the District Court of Colorado.

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

Friedeberg v. The Rand McNally Corp. · filed 2025-06-03(b)(2)

Thus, while it is also unclear that this court is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2), it is clear that the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut is a proper venue for this action under that provision.

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

Wallace v. Falkenrath · filed 2025-07-11(b)(2)

Here, Plaintiff’s claims arise entirely from events which occurred during his incarceration in the Western District of Missouri at JCCC. Therefore, the Court concludes that it is in the interest of justice to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri for all further proceedings.

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

Rankin v. The City of New York · filed 2025-08-12(b)(2)

However, because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Queens County, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Rivera v. Los Angeles Sheriff Department · filed 2025-09-22(b)

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 claims occurred.

D.O.C.C.S. · filed 2025-10-09(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue for these claims lies in the Western District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Cortina · filed 2025-10-14(b)(2)

In this case, the claim arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff's claim 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.

Sims · filed 2025-12-01(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Monroe County, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Western 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.

Summa · filed 2026-01-02(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to these claims occurred in Wyoming County, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Western 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.

Stone v. Bedford Stuyvesant Family Health Center · filed 2026-01-06(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 in Brooklyn, 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.

Reaves · filed 2026-01-16(b)(2)

The complaint alleges nothing to suggest that any of the alleged events occurred within this judicial district. Thus, this court does not appear to be 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 a claim occurred, even if venue may also be proper elsewhere.

Viera · filed 2026-02-12(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that at least one defendant resides in this District and all defendants reside in the State of New York, and that venue, therefore, is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Greene County, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of New York.

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

Friedeberg · filed 2026-03-24(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s claims arose in Connecticut, which is in the District of Connecticut. Accordingly, venue lies in the District of Connecticut, 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 Connecticut, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b) places venue for a civil claim arising from events in Florida in a proper Florida district when no other venue basis applies.

Whynot · filed 2026-03-31(b)

As for Ms. Shurtleff’s civil rights claims, venue for a civil action brought in federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... In the present case, dismissal seems to be the proper course of action since, in essence, Ms. Shurtleff has brought two different and distinct claims: a federal due process claim for actions taken in Florida that must be brought in Florida and a request to be appointed guardian/conservator of Ms. Whynot that must be brought in a state court in Tennessee. ... Thus, the Court adopts the recommendation that all claims be dismissed sua sponte.

Section 1391 treats a corporate defendant as residing in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction, allowing venue there under subsection (b)(1).

Luverne Truck Equipment, Inc. v. Worldwide Equipment, Inc. · filed 2016-03-24(b)(1), (c)(2)

Therefore, “a defendant is ‘deemed to reside [for venue purposes] in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.’” ... Because the court finds that it can exercise personal jurisdiction over Worldwide, it also finds that the District of South Dakota is a proper venue for this action.

Section 1391 treats an LLC as residing in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction, making venue proper there when it is the sole defendant.

Campbell v. CGM, LLC · filed 2015-07-20(c)(2)

For the reasons described above, the court has personal jurisdiction over CGM, a corporate defendant, and therefore venue is proper in this district.

In an action against a corporation not founded solely on diversity jurisdiction, venue is proper where the claim arose or where the corporation does business.

Umstead v. Durham Hosiery Mills, Inc. · filed 1984-09-13(b), (c)

Plaintiffs could have joined in the previous actions in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Venue would have been proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) (venue in action against corporation not founded solely on diversity jurisdiction is proper where claim arose or where corporation is doing business).

Section 1391 permits venue where the claims arose and where a corporate defendant conducts business.

Brock v. Self · filed 1986-04-17(b), (c)

This Court has venue over the asserted claims because they arose in the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division, and because the Hancel McCord Company conducts business in said District. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c).

Section 1391 permits an action against a state administrative agency in any district where the agency maintains an office.

Wirtz Corp. v. United Distillers & Vintners North America, Inc. · filed 1999-10-15

Under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, an action brought against a state administrative agency may properly be brought in any district in which the agency maintains an office.

Section 1391 treats a corporate defendant as residing in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction, and venue may be proper in more than one district.

Bridgeport MacHines, Inc. v. Alamo Iron Works, Inc. · filed 1999-07-09(a)(1), (c)

Since Alamo Works has not challenged this Court’s personal jurisdiction over it, the Court finds that venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1) given that Alamo Works is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction.

A corporation subject to personal jurisdiction in a district resides there for venue purposes, and venue is proper under § 1391(b)(1) when all defendants reside in the same state.

Continental Casualty Co. v. American Home Assurance Co. · filed 1999-08-11(b)(1), (c)

The Court has determined that the Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction within this District by virtue of their registration with the Insurance Commissioner. Therefore, the Defendants are deemed to reside in this judicial District, and venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(c) treats a corporation as residing in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction, and § 1391(b) permits venue there when all defendants reside in the same state.

In Re Triton Ltd. Securities Litigation · filed 1999-09-29(b), (c)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), Triton is a resident of the Eastern District of Texas. Defendants Rugg and Finck are residents of the State of Texas. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in the Eastern District because “any” defendant, Triton, resides in this District and all defendants reside in the same state.

Section 1391 permits a nondiversity action in a district where a corporate defendant resides, and treats a corporation as residing in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Bessette v. Avco Financial Services, Inc. · filed 1999-10-19(b)(1), (c)

The statute also states that for “purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Since defendants have admitted that personal jurisdiction exists here with regard to all defendants, this Court is an appropriate forum to hear plaintiffs’ claims.

A corporate defendant resides for venue purposes in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction, and venue is proper where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state.

United States v. Klearman · filed 1999-11-17(b)(1), (c)

If Lancer is subject to personal jurisdiction, however, then it, too, is a Missouri resident for purposes of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c): “For purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.” Thus, if Lancer is subject to personal jurisdiction in Missouri, then venue is appropriate there, given that an action can be brought in any “judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). ... Accordingly, the Eastern District of Missouri may exercise personal jurisdiction over Lancer. And, for the reasons noted above, it follows that the present case could have been brought in that district.

A corporate defendant resides for venue purposes in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction, making venue proper there under § 1391(b)(1).

IMS Health, Inc. v. Vality Technology Inc. · filed 1999-07-28(b)(1), (c)

Because the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Vality by this Court is perfectly legitimate, Vality may be said to reside in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Such a conclusion renders venue proper here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(c) makes venue proper against a corporation where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Murphy v. Avon Products, Inc. · filed 1999-08-04(c)

Venue is proper both here and in Arizona: Avon has a plant here and its products are sold in Arizona, so it is subject to personal jurisdiction in both states, and venue is proper where a corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Section 1391(e) permits venue in an action against a federal agency where a substantial part of the property at issue is located.

Airport Working Group of Orange County, Inc. v. United States Department of Defense · filed 2002-10-22(e)

In a civil action against an agency or department of the United States government or any of its officers or employees acting in their official capacity, venue is proper in any judicial district where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). In the action before this Court, it is beyond dispute that venue is proper in the Central District of California, for the claim involves disposition of surplus federal property, El Toro, which is located in the Central District.

Section 1391(e) permits venue in a district where a federal agency defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

FMC Corp. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · filed 2008-06-03(e)

As Judge Lee correctly concluded, venue is proper here as D.C. is a judicial district in which a defendant in the action (EPA) resides or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Section 1391(e) requires a substantial connection between the events giving rise to a claim and the district where venue is sought; an ambiguous reference to that district is insufficient.

Gibbs v. United States · filed 2012-03-31(e)

This one, ambiguous reference to Jacksonville does not support Plaintiffs assertion that venue is proper in this District.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against the United States where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred or the property at issue is located.

Wildearth Guardians v. United States Bureau of Land Management · filed 2013-02-13(e)(1)

Venue is proper in an action against the United States in “any 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(e)(1). This action “might have been brought” in the District of Wyoming, see § 1404(a), because the tracts of land at issue are located there and the contested regulatory actions took place there.

Section 1391(e) permits venue in this type of case where the plaintiff or a defendant resides or where the events at issue occurred.

Chapman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · filed 2017-01-27(e)

Venue in this type of case is appropriate in the district of residence of the plaintiff or a defendant or where the events at issue occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). None of the defendants reside in this district, prior to his transfer to USPTH none of Chapman’s claims had any connection to this district, and there is no indication that Chapman resided here prior to his incarceration.

Section 1391(e) permits an action against federal officials or agencies in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

W. Watersheds Project v. Tidwell · filed 2017-11-20(e)

Therefore, it is clear that "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" also occurred in that District.

Section 1391(e) permits a civil action against the United States in a district where the plaintiff resides.

Barrigas v. United States of America · filed 2018-03-09(e)

See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) (civil action against United States may be brought in any judicial district in which a defendant resides, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or plaintiff resides, if no real ... property is involved). ... Based on the allegations in the Amended Complaint and Plaintiff’s affidavit, the United States’ motion to dismiss for improper venue is DENIED.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue for a civil action against the United States where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if venue may also be proper elsewhere.

Ford-Bey v. United States · filed 2020-01-02(e)(1)

Even if venue for some claimed items may be proper in the Eastern District of Virginia, a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” in the District of Columbia. ... Thus, venue is proper here to hear the plaintiff’s equitable claim for return of 27 items that were not the subject of administrative forfeiture.

Section 1391(e)(1) can make the District of Columbia a proper venue for an action against a federal official.

Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Hendrickson · filed 2020-01-07(e)(1)

Because this is an action against a federal official, it could have been brought in the District of Columbia. 28 U.S.C. §1391(e)(1).

Section 1391(e) permits an action against a federal agency in a district where a defendant resides.

Simon v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2020-08-07(e)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), a civil action “in which a defendant is . . . an agency of the United States” may be brought “in any judicial district in which . . . a defendant in the action resides.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). Accordingly, because Mr. Simon brings this action against a federal agency located in Washington, D.C., venue is proper under § 1391(b).

Section 1391(e) permits venue in an action against the United States where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred or where the plaintiff resides.

Melwood Horticultural Training Center, Inc. v. United States · filed 2020-11-30(e)

Melwood asserts that the District of Maryland is the proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because it is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” or where “the plaintiff resides[.]” (See Pl.’s Opp. at 12). Of course, the BOSS Contract was performed in Maryland, where Fort Meade is located, and alternatively, Melwood’s principal place of business in Maryland. (Compl. at 2, 7). Therefore, the District of Maryland would indeed be the proper venue.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in an action against the United States where any plaintiff resides, if no real property is involved and that plaintiff independently has standing.

Adrianza v. Trump · filed 2020-12-07(e)(1)

Plaintiffs invoke the venue provision that allows lawsuits against the United States to be brought in a judicial district where any plaintiff resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) (specifying that action against the United States may be brought in a district in which “the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action”); ... Mr. Adrianza’s independent standing makes venue proper in this district.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim against the federal government occurred.

Ike v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2020-12-15(e)(1)

Therefore, at least “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that district.

Under § 1391(e)(1), a federal agency resides in the District of Columbia for venue purposes, and venue is improper in a district where neither party resides and no events giving rise to the claim are alleged to have occurred.

Murphy Esq. Sr. v. U.S. Internal Revenue Service Taxpayer Advocate · filed 2021-08-18(e)(1)

For the purposes of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), federal agencies, such as the IRS, are deemed to reside in the District of Columbia. ... As neither Plaintiff nor Defendant resides in this district, and there are no allegations in the Complaint indicating that the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this district, venue in Eastern District of California is improper.

Section 1391 permits venue where the sole corporate defendant resides, and a corporation resides in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Turcotte v. Global Refining Group, Inc. · filed 2021-11-04(b), (c)

When there is only one defendant, venue is generally proper in any district in which the defendant resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). For venue purposes, corporations reside in every district where personal jurisdiction over them exists. Jd. § 1391(c). ... Because personal jurisdiction existed, proper venue over Global also existed.> See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where the sole defendant resides, and § 1391(d) determines a corporation’s residence in a state with multiple judicial districts by its contacts with each district.

Patrick Henry Medical, L.L.C. v. Prochant, Inc. · filed 2021-11-29(b)(1), (c)(2), (d)

Here, Prochant is the sole defendant and is incorporated under the laws of the State of Georgia (Dkt. #1 ¶ 4). Thus, Prochant is “at home” in Georgia and would be subject to general jurisdiction in Georgia’s courts. Id. at 137. Furthermore, neither BOL nor Miracle contend that the Northern District of Georgia is an improper venue, rather they argue the Georgia court would be inconvenient (Dkt. #21 at p. 6). Consequently, the Court finds venue would be proper in the Northern District of Georgia for purposes of § 1391.

Section 1391(e) permits an APA suit against a federal agency in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Meisner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-18(e)

Given these allegations, the Court concludes that venue is proper in this District under Section 1391(e).

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in an action against a federal agency where a defendant resides, substantial events giving rise to the claim occurred, or substantial property at issue is situated.

National Wildlife Refuge Association v. United States Army Corps of Engineers · filed 2023-08-07(e)(1)

As relevant here, in “civil action[s] in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof,” or is “an agency of the United States,” venue is proper “in any judicial district in which . . . a defendant in the action resides,” “a substantial part of the events . . . 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(e)(1). ... Thus, venue is proper in the proposed transferee district.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in an action against the federal government where a defendant resides, a substantial part of the relevant events or omissions occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Farroukh v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services · filed 2023-10-25(e)(1)

Though the District of Columbia does not satisfy any of the § 1391(e)(1) requirements for proper venue, the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Maryland both do. The defendant, USCIS, resides in Maryland for venue purposes and Farroukh, the plaintiff, resides in Sterling, Virginia, within the Eastern District.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue for a suit against a federal agency where the plaintiff resides or where the agency office processing the plaintiff’s application is located.

Khoush v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2024-03-01(e)(1)

The Court finds that the non-resident Plaintiffs could have brought suit in the district where they reside or in the district where the USCIS offices processing their applications are located. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). For each Plaintiff, the relevant USCIS office makes decisions about each application, rendering that office the place where the “acts or omissions” giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits an action against a federal agency in a district where the agency resides.

Correll v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office · filed 2026-02-05(e)(1)

“A civil action in which a defendant is . . . an agency of the United States . . . may . . . be brought in any judicial district in which . . . a defendant in the action resides[.]” Id. § 1391(e)(1). Here, the USPTO’s residence is considered to be the location of its headquarters (Alexandria, Virginia), which is in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) do not make venue proper in a district with no alleged defendant residence or events giving rise to the claims.

Adams · filed 2026-04-01(b)(1), (2)

Because Defendants are employed in Miami, and the alleged events arose from litigation in Florida, it is clear from the face of the complaint that venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

Section 1391(b) generally places venue in a district where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events occurred.

Chan · filed 2026-03-19(b)

Venue is also improper in this District. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action must generally be brought in a judicial district where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events occurred. Chan resides in New York, and the apartment at the center of this dispute is presumably in New York. There is no indication that any defendant resides in Missouri or that any relevant events occurred in this District.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; the plaintiff’s residence does not affect that inquiry.

Finally Sunday LLC v. Friday Beers LLC · filed 2025-02-05(b)(1)

“A civil action may be brought in . . . a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the [s]tate in which the district is located.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). ... Because all the defendants in this case reside in the Central District of California, see Docket Item 16 at ¶¶ 4-9, this case certainly could have been brought in that district in the first instance.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence only if all defendants reside in the state where the district is located.

Emrit v. Musk · filed 2025-01-16(b)(1)

Section 1391(b)(1)’s requirements are not met as plaintiff alleges that Speaker Johnson resides in Louisiana and implies another defendant resides in Texas.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the district where a defendant resides.

Pena v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company · filed 2021-07-15(b)

Defendant is a citizen of New Jersey and is therefore subject to general personal jurisdiction in New Jersey due to its continuous and systematic contacts with the State, see Daimler, 571 U.S. at 127, and venue is thus proper in the District of New Jersey.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state.

UTZ QUALITY FOODS, LLC v. DIRTY SOUTH BBQ CO. LLC · filed 2020-07-28(b)(1)

Further, venue would be proper in that district as Dirty South is a resident of Tennessee.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides when all defendants reside in that state.

SM Financial Services Corporation v. Health Care Service Corporation · filed 2020-07-16(b)(1)

... 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) (stating venue is proper in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located”). For these reasons, the Court finds that this matter could have been brought in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a judicial district where the defendant resides.

Mooney v. Genzyme Corporation · filed 2020-07-08(b)(1)

Regarding the first prong of § 1404(a), the parties agree that the action could have been brought in the District of Massachusetts, where Genzyme is a resident. Venue is indeed proper “in a judicial district in which any defendant resides.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The first prong of the test is thus satisfied.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state.

Scott v. Carr · filed 2020-07-06(b)(1)

Venue is likewise proper in the District of Colorado given that all defendants reside in the state.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state.

Mandel v. Hafermann · filed 2020-06-02(b)(1)

As to the first element, Plaintiff does not appear to dispute that this action might have been brought in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff is domiciled “in either Park City, Utah or Nashville, Tennessee” and Defendants are domiciled in the State of California, with Ms. Hafermann and Mr. Elliott living in the Northern District.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence in the district when the court decides a motion concerning that defendant.

Galligan v. Adtalem Global Education, Inc. · filed 2020-01-15(b)(1)

Although venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) to decide this motion because Adtalem resides here, the court dismisses Adtalem.

Venue is proper under § 1391(b)(1) when all defendants reside in the state and an entity defendant is deemed to reside in the district because it is subject to personal jurisdiction there.

Northstar Alarm Services v. Alder Home Protection · filed 2019-06-24(b)(1)

Because MX is subject to personal jurisdiction in Utah, MX is deemed to reside in Utah for venue purposes. Given that Alder and NorthStar are also Utah residents, venue in this judicial district is proper under § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391 permits venue based on where defendants reside and defines residence for venue purposes.

Sanhua International, Inc. v. Riggle · filed 2019-05-13(b)(1), (c)(1), (c)(2)

Defendants do not dispute that the court has personal jurisdiction over them in Illinois. Accordingly, venue is also proper in the Northern District of Illinois.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence only if all defendants reside in the state containing the district.

Moland v. Explosive Countermeasures International, Inc. · filed 2019-05-21(b)(1)

First, this district cannot be a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because not all defendants are residents of the District of Columbia.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits suit in a district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state; the plaintiff’s residence does not establish venue under this provision.

Emrit v. Desert Parkway Behavioral Hospital · filed 2019-06-06(b)(1)

Section 1391(b)(1) looks to whether all defendants are residents of the same state, and if so, permits suit to be brought in any district within that state – it does not concern the plaintiff’s residence.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state.

Intelect Corporation v. Cellco Partnership Gp · filed 2016-02-05(b)(1)

Because all of the defendants are citizens of Delaware, venue would also be proper there. A civil action may be brought in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Accordingly, Intelect could have originally brought this action in the District of Delaware.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; subsection (d) defines corporate residence by personal jurisdiction in the district.

Huntley v. Chicago Board of Options Exchange · filed 2015-09-23(b)(1), (d)

Accordingly, venue in that district is proper, and this action could have been brought there. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) (venue is proper in a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d) (corporation is a resident of any judicial district where it would be subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where the sole remaining defendant resides.

Hart v. Salois · filed 2015-03-10(b)(1)

Pendleton resides in the District of Utah, and no other defendant remains to be considered under § 1391(b)(1). Thus, venue is proper as to defendant Pendleton.

When all defendants reside in the same state, § 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a judicial district where any defendant resides.

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Genentech, Inc. · filed 2009-03-19(b)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in “a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State.” ... Defendant Genentech maintains its headquarters in the Northern District of California, and was subject to personal jurisdiction there when the action commenced. Defendant Biogen Idee maintains a substantial research and development presence in San Diego, which is located in the Southern District of California, and thus resides in the same state as Genentech. Therefore, this action could have been brought in the Northern District of California.

Section 1391(b) considers where defendants reside and where the alleged events occurred when determining venue.

In Re: Berbard S. L · filed 2008-09-17(b)

Levi has also not established that he has a clear and indisputable right to have the case heard in the District of Columbia. It appears that the plaintiff and at least most of the defendants reside in Pennsylvania, and that the actions alleged in the complaint occurred in Pennsylvania. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where any defendant resides when all defendants reside in the same state.

Marshall v. Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc. · filed 2008-02-26(b)

Under § 1391(b), “if all defendants reside in the same state,” venue is proper in any district “where any defendant resides[.]” Id. Here, all defendants “reside” in the District of Columbia, as that term is defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Because venue in this district is proper for the § 1981 claim against GSI, GSI’s motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue will be denied.

Section 1391(b) does not support venue in a district without evidence that a defendant resides there or that substantial events occurred there.

Doe v. Klein · filed 2007-11-15(b)

There is neither evidence to show that any of the CIRM or Finance Committee parties reside in the Central District of California,... nor evidence to show that any substantial events, within the meaning of venue law, took place in that district.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district where no defendant resides and none of the alleged events occurred.

Johnson v. Christopher · filed 2007-05-17(b)

Venue is clearly inappropriate in the Eastern District because no defendant resides in the Eastern District and no events were alleged to have taken place in the Eastern District.

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

Coast-To-Coast Stores, Inc. v. Womack-Bowers, Inc. · filed 1984-10-10(a)

Further, since all the defendants reside in the Eastern District of Arkansas, venue is appropriate there under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a district where the defendants are domiciled.

Club Assistance Program, Inc. v. Zukerman · filed 1984-11-29(a)

Because defendants are California domiciliaries, this action could unquestionably have been brought in the Central District of California (28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)).

Section 1391(a) and (c) permit venue in a district where the defendants reside or do business.

Windmere Corp. v. Remington Products, Inc. · filed 1985-05-31(a), (c)

It is clear that the action could have originally been brought in the District of Connecticut under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), (c) as all the Defendants reside or do business in the District of Connecticut.

Section 1391(e)(4) permits venue in the district where the plaintiff resides.

Marcotte v. Secretary of Defense · filed 1985-08-21(e)(4)

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and, since plaintiff resides in this district, venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(4).

Section 1391(a) permits a diversity action in the district where the defendant resides; consent to another, nonexclusive forum does not make that venue improper.

Heyco, Inc. v. Heyman · filed 1986-06-17(a)

Venue is proper in this court, however, because defendant resides in New York County, which is located within the Southern District of New York.

Section 1391(e) makes the plaintiff’s chosen district a proper venue when the plaintiff resides there.

Eberhart v. Baker · filed 1987-02-10(e)

Plaintiff’s choice of forum in this case is the Western District of Pennsylvania. This choice is proper as plaintiff resides within the district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).

In a diversity action, venue is proper in the district where the defendant resides.

National Union Fire Insurance v. Steckler · filed 1987-03-27(a)

Thus, since citizenship is diverse, there is federal subject matter jur-. isdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), and venue in the Central District of California where Mr. Steckler resides would be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendants do not all reside and the claims did not arise.

Jennings v. Entre Computer Centers, Inc. · filed 1987-05-07(b)

The Court need not reach this argument, because venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) without regard to the existence or enforceability of the clause.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a district where the defendants reside.

Kendall U.S.A., Inc. v. Central Printing Co. · filed 1987-08-07(a)

Subject matter jurisdiction exists by virtue of diversity (see 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1982)), and venue is proper in the Dayton Division of the Southern District of Ohio since the defendant and third-party defendants all reside there (see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) (1982)).

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity action in the district where the defendants reside.

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Landry · filed 1987-12-18(a)

Thus, since citizenship is diverse, there is federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and venue in the Western District of Louisiana, where the defendants reside, would be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

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

Bally Manufacturing Corp. v. Kane · filed 1988-11-07(a)

Based on Kane’s residency, venue is therefore proper in the Middle District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Section 1391(a) permits venue where all defendants reside or where the claim arose.

Miller v. County of Passaic, NJ · filed 1988-11-17(a)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) provides that an action may be brought “in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose.” Since the defendant county and officials are in New Jersey, and the alleged injury occurred in New Jersey, New Jersey would be a suitable forum in which to bring this suit. The case could have been brought in New Jersey originally; therefore it may be transferred there.

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

Heller Financial, Inc. v. Riverdale Auto Parts, Inc. · filed 1989-03-31(a)

Jurisdiction exists over defendants and venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia, as that is where all defendants reside. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where the defendant resides.

Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Stephens · filed 1989-09-20(b)

Venue is also proper in a Tennessee district court because Stephens is a Tennessee resident. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (1982).

For an action not based solely on diversity, § 1391(b) permits venue where all defendants reside or where the claim arose, unless another law provides otherwise.

VMS/PCA Ltd. Partnership v. PCA Partners Ltd. Partnership · filed 1989-10-05(b)

VMS has relied on the general venue provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Because VMS’ civil action is not based solely on diversity, venue as to the additional claims is proper “only in the judicial district where all of the defendants reside, or in which the claim arose, except as otherwise provided by law.” We recognize that venue based on residence of all defendants would be improper both here and in the Northern District of Texas.

Section 1391(a) requires all defendants to reside in the district for venue to rest on their residence.

Mullins v. Fast Motor Service, Inc. · filed 1989-10-31(a)

Venue would not have been proper in this district; since not all of the defendants reside here, as is required under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)—Samuel Clark is a citizen of Texas.

Section 1391(a) makes venue proper in a district where the defendants reside.

Shipley Co., Inc. v. Clark · filed 1990-01-16(a)

The first requirement for a § 1404(a) transfer — that the Western District of Michigan be a forum where the action may have been brought initially — is satisfied here because defendants are Michigan residents. As such, venue would have been proper there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

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

Northwestern National Insurance v. Frumin · filed 1990-06-22(a)

Venue in each of the cases is proper in Texas because all three of the defendants are residents of Texas.

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

United Companies Life Insurance v. Butler-Phillips Management Services, Inc. · filed 1990-11-25(a)

It is clear that this suit could have properly been brought in the Southern District of Ohio under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) since all defendants are residents of that district.

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

Continental Bank N.A. v. Modansky · filed 1991-02-07(a)

The first factor is satisfied in this case: venue is proper in the transferor forum because the plaintiff, Continental, resides in Chicago.

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

Midwest Motor Supply Co., Inc. v. Kimball · filed 1991-03-05(a)

There is no dispute that the Northern District of Georgia, the district in which defendant resides, is a district in which this action might have been brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Section 1391(a) makes venue improper in a district where the defendant does not reside and no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Wims v. Beach Terrace Motor Inn, Inc. · filed 1991-03-19(a)

Because personal jurisdiction does not exist in this district, venue cannot properly be laid here, as this is not a district in which the defendant resides or in which a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).