28 U.S.C. § 1391

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state, even when venue may also be proper elsewhere.

Maki v. Neptune Constr. Grp., Inc. · filed 2018-05-22(b)(1)

The problem with this argument is that venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida under § 1391(b)(1) because all Defendants reside in Florida.

Venue is proper under § 1391(b)(1) and (2) where the defendants reside and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Wright v. Miranda · filed 2018-07-10(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because both the defendants and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim were located in the Southern District, the district court properly determined that the case should be transferred there. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Revis v. Tustin Construction Services, LLC · filed 2018-08-21(b)(1)

It ignores the fact that venue would be proper in this case in any “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). ... In this case, the sole Defendant, TCS, resides in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. ... Accordingly, this action could have been brought originally in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where the sole defendant resides, even if the events giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.

Revis v. Tustin Constr. Servs., LLC · filed 2018-08-21(b)(1)

It ignores the fact that venue would be proper in this case in any "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). In this case, the sole Defendant, TCS, resides in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Its principal place of business is located in that district, in Norristown, Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in Massachusetts when no defendant resides there and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there.

Jacobs v. Fillipi · filed 2018-10-09(b)

Thus, venue is not proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where the defendant has its principal place of business.

CollegeNET, Inc. v. Common Application, Inc. · filed 2018-11-28(b)(1), (c)(3)

Though this alternate venue is proper, the Court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated that the convenience of the parties and witnesses or any other factors outweigh the great weight accorded to Plaintiff's choice of forum. ... Defendant's principal place of business is Virginia. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (c)(3) ; see also 15 U.S.C. § 22 (an antitrust suit against a corporation may be brought in any district where the defendant transacts business).

Section 1391(b) would not make Massachusetts a proper federal venue for this dispute because no defendant resided there and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there.

Magic Link Garment Ltd. v. ThirdLove, Inc. · filed 2018-12-06(b)

Had it filed here, venue would not have been proper for no defendant resides here and this is not a district “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Gage v. Somerset Cnty. · filed 2019-03-28(b)(1)

Because all of the Defendants are residents of New Jersey, venue is proper in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Section 1391(e) permits venue in the district where the petitioner resides for an action against a federal officer.

Glory Edokpayi v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen · filed 2019-03-29(e)

The record reflects that Mr. Edokpayi is a resident of Dallas, Texas, and therefore, the most appropriate district court is the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

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

Access Care MSO, LLC v. Oberheiden · filed 2019-04-02(b)(1)

Because venue is a procedural issue, requiring application of federal law in diversity cases, see Gleich v. Tastefully Simple, Inc., No. 05 C 1415, 2005 WL 3299187, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 2, 2005), the Court finds the Northern District of Texas an appropriate venue because the Oberheiden Defendants reside there, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides; the court treated Saks as residing in New York because its headquarters is there.

Sacklow v. Saks Inc. · filed 2019-05-06(b)

Indeed, because Saks has its headquarters in New York, it "resides" there for purposes of the venue statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Transfer is therefore permitted; the question is whether it is appropriate.

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

Savarese v. City of New York · filed 2019-06-13(b)(1)

Because the City of New York “resides” in the Southern District of New York, pursuant to §1391(b)(1), a suit can be brought against all the Defendants in the Southern District.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits an action to be brought in a district where the defendant resides.

SEIFERT v. SF&P ADVISORS, INC. · filed 2019-07-02(b)(1)

As a corporation of the State of Florida with its principal place of business in that same State, Defendant clearly resides in Florida, within the meaning of Section 1391(b)(1). Accordingly, the Southern District of Florida is a venue in which this action could have been brought.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; the court needs facts establishing either basis to determine whether venue is proper in a proposed district.

Barbero v. TLC Property Management, LLC · filed 2019-07-10(b)(1)-(2)

However, Plaintiff has made no allegations as to this Defendant’s residency. Accordingly, the Court is unable to determine whether this action could have been brought in the E.D. originally based on Defendant’s residency. ... However, the Court is unable to determine where any of the alleged events or omissions took place, as the complaint does not identify where “TLC Verandas apartments” is located. Thus, the Court cannot determine whether this action could have been brought in the E.D. originally based on the location of the events or omissions at issue.

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

Sheree Cosmetics LLC v. Kylie Cosmetics, LLC · filed 2019-07-19(b)(1)

Because CDCA can exercise general personal jurisdiction over all Defendants, CDCA would also be a proper venue.

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

Seramur v. Federal Insurance Company · filed 2019-07-19(b)(1), (c)(2)

The Court first notes that venue would be proper in the Fort Worth Division, as both Defendants reside in Texas, and Rotobrush’s principal place of business is in Grapevine, Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) (1), (c) (2).

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

Lotief v. Board of Supervisors of the University of Louisiana System · filed 2019-07-31(b)(1)

As all of the individual defendants are residents of Louisiana according to Lotief’s allegations, venue is proper in this district.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no party resides and none of the alleged acts or omissions occurred.

Nanney v. Hooks · filed 2019-08-07(b)

None of the alleged acts or omissions occurred in the District of Columbia and no party resides there. The District Court for the District of Columbia properly transferred the case to this Court due to lack of venue. Plaintiff’s Motion to change venue back to the District of Columbia will therefore be denied.

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

CPM CONSULTING LLC v. CAPSUGEL US LLC · filed 2019-08-09(b)(1)-(2)

Under the general venue statute, “[a] civil action may be brought in...a judicial district in which any defendant resides” or “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2). ... Additionally, the Court finds that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the NJLAD claim occurred in New Jersey, because Defendant allegedly replaced Rivaplata with three Indian nationals in New Jersey.

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

Green v. Blake · filed 2019-08-12(b)(1)

Venue is proper in this district, too, given that both defendants reside in Kansas.

Section 1391(a) allows a civil action to be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides.

United States v. Bynum · filed 2019-08-13(a)

A civil action may be brought in the judicial district in which the defendant resides. 28 U.S.C. §1391(a). ... Based on the pro se Defendant’s Answer, the Government could have brought this case in the Middle District of North Carolina.

A defendant’s place of employment does not establish residence for venue under § 1391(b).

Simpson, Willie v. Litscher, Jon · filed 2019-08-21(b)

They say that none of the defendants for the claims in those cases reside in the Western District because they are all employed at GBCI. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). But this doesn’t necessarily follow; a person’s place of employment is not their place of residence, and stranger things have happened than a Green Bay-based employee residing in the Western District.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Pannell v. Schenectady County Jail Sheriff · filed 2019-08-23(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district 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)(1) permits venue where the defendants reside, and § 1391(b)(2) permits venue where the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.

Patton v. Johnson · filed 2019-09-04(b)(1), (b)(2)

Plaintiffs do not dispute that, at the time it was filed in Rhode Island, this case could have been brought in the Northern District of Texas under either 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) or § 1391(b)(2) because JLF and Barry Johnson were both citizens of Texas, both then were residing in the Northern District of Texas, as well as because the ARA stipulates that Tarrant County, Texas, (which is in the Northern District of Texas) is the place of performance9 and virtually all of the events and omissions that give rise to the malpractice/misrepresentation claims occurred in the Northern District of Texas.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides; for an entity, residence includes a district whose court has personal jurisdiction over it in the action.

DATTA v. TWIN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. · filed 2019-09-09(b)(1)

As the record reflects that Defendant is headquartered in Albany, New York, it was subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of New York at the time Plaintiffs filed this action and, consequently, resided in that District for venue purposes. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs could have commenced this case in the Northern District of New York, and that the Court may transfer this matter to that District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) if the transfer would otherwise be appropriate.

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

Johnson v. County of Erie · filed 2019-09-09(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district or that 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) permits venue where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Restricted Filer v. Roseboom · filed 2019-09-12(b)

Under the revised venue statute, venue in federal-question cases lies in the district in which any defendant resides or in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits a civil action against a sole defendant in the judicial district where that defendant resides.

Management Registry, Inc. v. Cloud Consulting Partners, Inc. · filed 2019-09-18(b)(1)

Because CCP is the only defendant and resides, for venue purposes, in Rancho Mirage, California, the Court finds that the action could have been brought in the Southern District of California.

Section 1391(b) permits an action to be brought in a district where the defendants reside.

Optimize Courier, LLC v. Ally · filed 2019-09-18(b)

This litigation could, therefore, have been brought in that District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), and Optimize does not argue to the contrary.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue for a proceeding to modify an arbitration award in the district where the respondent has its principal place of business.

Webb v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. · filed 2019-08-29(b)(1)

Under the general venue statute, venue is proper in this District because respondent CGMI has its principal place of business here.

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

Young v. United States · filed 2019-09-04(b)

No defendants are alleged to reside in, and no act or omission giving rise to Plaintiff’s injuries is alleged to have occurred in either San Diego or Imperial County.

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where the defendants reside, including entity defendants whose residence is determined under subsection (c)(2).

Williams v. US Corrections, LLC. · filed 2019-09-24(b)(1), (c)(2)

As a preliminary matter, although the complaint describes events that took place in Florida and Georgia, it alleges that the Defendants are based in Nashville and are residents of this judicial district. Accordingly, venue is appropriate in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (c)(2).

Section 1391(b)(1) makes venue proper in a judicial district where any defendant resides.

David and Lily Penn, Inc. v. TruckPro, LLC · filed 2019-09-25(b)(1)

Venue is proper in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides.” ... Thus, venue is proper in the Western District of Tennessee.

Section 1391 supports venue in the district where the vessel involved in the action is located.

New Pelican Charters, LLC · filed 2019-09-25

Venue is proper in this Court because the M/V New Pelican is located in Port Aransas, Texas, which is located in the Corpus Christi Division of the Southern District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 124(b)(6). ... The Court adopts the M&R’s statement of the jurisdiction and background in this case.

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

Casper Sleep Inc. v. Nectar Brand LLC · filed 2019-09-27(b)(1)

Here, it is undisputed that venue is proper in the Northern District of California: Defendants’ principal place of business is in Palo Alto, California. ... Defendants therefore reside in the Northern District of California, and this action could have been brought there.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits a civil action in a district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the state containing that district.

Beckett v. Grant · filed 2019-10-02(b)(1)

These Defendants, however, have not moved to transfer the claims against them to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and, pursuant to § 1391(b)(1), 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.” Because it appears that all Defendants are residents of Pennsylvania, the Court declines to transfer Plaintiff’s claims regarding events at SCI Laurel Highlands to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391 does not establish venue in a district when the defendants do not reside there and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the dispute occurred there.

Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Estrella · filed 2019-09-30

As an initial matter, in reviewing the R&R and deciding the motion for default judgment, the court notes that venue does not clearly lie in this District. That is, the Complaint alleges venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because all defendants reside in this District and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the dispute occurred in this District. (Compl. ¶ 16.) The alleged facts indicate otherwise. ... Plaintiff has thus not alleged facts in its Complaint or argued in its motion for default judgment that indicate venue lies in this District.

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

Aker Solutions Inc. v. Shamrock Energy Solutions, LLC · filed 2019-10-08(b)(1), (b)(2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(1) and (2), venue is proper in this Court because all the Defendants reside, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to Aker’s claims occurred, within this judicial district.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the district where a defendant corporation has its principal and sole place of business.

Vu v. RSI Racing Solutions, Inc. · filed 2019-10-16(b)

Finally, venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas as RSI’s principal and sole place of business is in Plano, Texas, which is in the Eastern District of Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper where the defendants do not reside and no substantial part of the events occurred.

Drake v. Travelers Indemnity Company · filed 2019-10-22(b)

As to plaintiff’s claims against Harrison County, the City of Hallsville, East Texas Bridge, Inc., Travelers Indemnity Company, Travelers Indemnity Co. of America, and Texas Department of Transportation, this Court is not the proper venue for these claims, as the events complained of occurred in Texas and the defendants are citizens of Texas, or are Texas corporations or Texas government agencies.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) permit venue based on a defendant’s residence or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Johnson v. Leonard · filed 2019-10-23(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district 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(e)(1)(C) permits a suit against a federal officer in an official capacity to be brought where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Herron v. Brennan · filed 2019-10-23(e)(1)(C)

However, Plaintiff does allege that he is a resident of Memphis, Tennessee, which establishes this District as a proper forum under the third factor in § 1391(e).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state; under § 1391(c)(3), a defendant outside the United States is disregarded when determining where the other defendants may be sued.

Lee v. Verimatrix Inc · filed 2019-10-25(b)(1)

Either way, venue would be proper in the Southern District of California under § 1391(b)(1).

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

ESI/Employee Solutions, LP v. City of Dallas · filed 2019-10-31(b)(1)

All defendants are residents of Texas and the City of Dallas is located in Dallas County, which is part of the Northern District of Texas. Accordingly, and at a minimum, venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas under § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where a defendant entity resides, including a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Hager v. Omnicare, Inc. · filed 2019-11-19(b)(1)

Finally, inasmuch as the Court has found it proper at this stage to exercise personal jurisdiction over Omnicare, it similarly concludes that venue is appropriate. Omnicare is subject to personal jurisdiction – and thus, for venue purposes, resides – in the Southern District of West Virginia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

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

Bluhm v. Wyndham Destinations Inc · filed 2019-11-21(b)(1)

Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida. Civil suits 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). Defendants concede they are each subject to general jurisdiction in the Middle District of Florida.

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

Lewis v. Nelson · filed 2019-11-25(b)

The underlying events occurred in Queens County, where Defendant appears to reside. Queens County falls within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) do not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and no events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Avent v. Platinum Plus Auto Protection · filed 2019-11-26(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district or that any 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)(1) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state.

Estate of George J. Kerrigan v. Kerrigan · filed 2019-12-04(b)(1)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) 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.” The only defendant resides in Massachusetts, making venue proper in that state.

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

Strachn v. City of New York · filed 2019-12-06(b)(1)

Thus, venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because the City of New York is located within the Southern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits a civil action in a judicial district where any defendant resides.

DEFRANK v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. · filed 2019-12-13(b)(1)

Under the general venue statute, “[a] civil action may be brought in . . . a judicial district in which any defendant resides. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). The parties do not dispute that this matter could have been brought in the District of New Jersey (Doc. 26, PageID 206); (Doc. 28, PageID 222), and the Court, after reviewing the Amended Complaint, concurs.

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

DANDY v. ETHICON WOMEN'S HEATLH AND UROLOGY · filed 2019-12-13(b)(1)

Under Section 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because all of the Defendants in this action reside there.

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

Tariff Group, Inc. v. Cheer Athletics, Inc. · filed 2019-12-18(b)(1)

Venue is proper in a civil action “in the 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). Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Texas. Therefore, venue would be proper in the Northern District of Texas.

Section 1391 permits venue where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state, and treats an entity as residing where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Edgefield Holdings LLC v. Einbinder & Dunn LLP · filed 2019-12-31(b)(1), (c)(2)

Venue is proper 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). And an entity’s residence for venue purposes is where personal jurisdiction could be exercised over it. § 1391(c)(2).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state, and subsection (c)(2) treats an entity as residing where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the action.

DGVAULT, LLC v. DUNNE · filed 2020-01-06(b)(1), (c)(2)

And because the Middle District of Florida has personal jurisdiction over Arco with respect to this action, venue is proper there as well. See 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) & (c)(2).

Section 1391(e)(1)(A) permits venue where a federal officer sued in an official capacity resides.

Simpson v. Federal Bureau of Prison · filed 2020-01-08(e)(1)(A)

Venue is proper in this district because three Defendants against whom Official-Capacity Claims are asserted reside here. See § 1391(e)(1)(A).

Venue under § 1391(b)(1) or (2) is improper in a district where no defendant is alleged to reside and no substantial part of the events occurred.

Coston v. Commissioner of NYSDOCCS · filed 2020-01-09(b)(1), (2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district 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)(1) and (2) permit venue based on a defendant’s residence, subject to the state residence requirement, or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Ayer v. Great Meadows · filed 2020-01-13(b)(1), (2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district 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) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred.

Farha v. Foss · filed 2020-01-15(b)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to some of the claims are alleged to have occurred at 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 claim occurred.

McCurty v. Aguirre · filed 2020-01-16(b)

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

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

Johnson-Howard v. AECOM Special Missions Services, Inc. · filed 2020-01-17(b)(1), (c)(2)

Here, as discussed previously, the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants with respect to this or any other suit because Defendants’ principal place of business is in this judicial district. See Daimler, 571 U.S. at 137. Accordingly, Defendants reside in this district for venue purposes and venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

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

Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. DeSantis · filed 2020-02-07(b)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides two possibilities for venue in this case: (1) the district in which DeSantis resides, or (2) the district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. DeSantis does not reside in the Southern District of Ohio, but, rather, in the District of Colorado. And, as previously discussed, a substantial part of the events giving rise to TQL’s claims did not occur in the Southern District of Ohio, but, rather, in the District of Colorado, with the exception of one alleged breach in Buffalo, located in the Western District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits a civil action against a sole defendant in a judicial district where that defendant resides.

Leach v. New York City · filed 2020-02-10(b)(1)

Thus, both this Court and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York are proper venues for this action under § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b)(1) does not establish venue in a district where no defendant resides or is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Success Systems, Inc. v. Excentus Corporation · filed 2020-02-01(b)(1)

Venue is improper under Section 1391(b)(1) because the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over either defendant at the start of this action, nor do any of the defendants reside in Connecticut.

Section 1391(b)(1) cannot support venue based on a local defendant’s residence after the claim against that defendant is dismissed.

Hettinga v. Garcia · filed 2020-02-05(b)(1)

This lawsuit must be summarily dismissed because, at a minimum, the claim asserted against Plaintiff’s daughter fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and venue is improper against the remaining defendants. Specifically, although Plaintiff purports to sue her daughter, which would make venue in this District proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), she seeks no relief from her (see Compl. at 37-38) and nowhere alleges that she did anything wrong.

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

PRIME HOOKAH, INC. v. MK DISTRIBUTORS INC. · filed 2020-02-05(b)(1)

Here, there is no dispute that pursuant to Section 1391(b)(1) this litigation could have been brought in the District of Massachusetts, where all of the Defendants reside.

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.

Johnson v. Department of Social Services · filed 2020-02-24(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, this Court is a proper venue for this action under § 1391(b)(1), and the United States District Court for the Western District of New York is a proper venue for this action under § 1391(b)(1) and (2).

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

Hardney v. ABC Phones of North Carolina · filed 2020-02-27(b)(1)

Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), “[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.” Here, ABC is the sole defendant in this matter and is headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 16.) Accordingly, the Court finds this action could have been brought in the Western Division of the Eastern District of North Carolina.

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

Joubert v. Lienhard · filed 2020-03-13(b)(1)

The venue provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, provides that 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.” Both Defendants are residents of Austin, which lies within the Western District of Texas.

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

Landstar Inway, Inc. v. Central Freight Lines, Inc. · filed 2020-03-17(b)(1)-(2)

Because the requirements of § 1391(b) have been met, the venue here is not improper and dismissal or transfer pursuant to § 1406 would be inappropriate.

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

(PC) Smith v. Chanelo · filed 2020-03-18(b)

“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; [or] (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Defendants are all employees of Kern Valley State Prison, and there is no indication that any, much less “a substantial part,” of the events giving rise to this suit have taken place within the boundaries of the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where the defendant resides, and a corporation resides in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Worthington Industries, Inc. v. Inland Kenworth (US) Inc · filed 2020-03-18(b)(1)

Inland is subject to personal jurisdiction in Ohio, which makes it a resident for purposes of venue under § 1391(b)(1). Thus, because venue is proper under § 1391(b)(1), the Court need not determine whether venue is also proper under § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) makes venue proper in the district where Brafman is incorporated and has its principal place of business.

FLIPSIDE WALLETS LLC v. THE BRAFMAN GROUP INC. · filed 2020-03-19(b)

Courts in New Jersey may exercise general jurisdiction over Brafman because the company is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in West Orange, New Jersey. (Compl. ¶ 28.) For those same reasons, venue is also proper in the District of New Jersey. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Baez v. Malin · filed 2020-03-25(b)(1)

Because all Defendants are residents of New York, this makes both the Northern and Southern Districts proper venues under § 1391(b)(1), as venue is appropriate 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) (emphasis added); ... Thus, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion to dismiss the Action for improper venue.

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

Harris v. Collet · filed 2020-04-01(b)(1)

Because all Defendants to the current action are alleged to reside in Tennessee, venue is proper in any district where one of them resides, under Section 1391(b)(1).

An entity subject to personal jurisdiction in a district resides there for venue purposes, so venue may be proper there based on the defendant’s residence.

ROGERS v. SMITH VOLKSWAGEN, LTD. · filed 2020-04-06(b)(1), (c)(2)

Because Smith is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Smith is deemed to reside here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2). Venue is proper in this district under § 1391(b)(1) because it is a judicial district in which Defendant resides.

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

Jones v. Hamblen Co. Sheriffs Dept. · filed 2020-04-07(b)(1)

Because all Defendants to the current action appear to reside in Tennessee, venue is proper in any district where one of them resides, under Section 1391(b)(1).

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

House v. Bickmeyer · filed 2020-04-20(b)(1)

Venue would thus be properly laid in the Eastern District of ... Missouri under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant is alleged to reside and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Battle v. Warden of Craven Correctional Institution · filed 2020-04-20(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims arose in this district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Callahan v. Wisdom · filed 2020-04-29(b)(1)

This case “could have been brought” in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, where both Defendants reside, and where, accordingly, the District Court has personal jurisdiction and venue is proper.

Section 1391(b)(1)–(2) permits venue based on the defendant’s residence or where the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

B2Gold Corp. v. Christopher · filed 2020-05-28(b)(1)–(2)

And venue is proper in this district because defendant Christopher resides in Virginia and disseminated the “Spectre Report” while present in the Eastern District of Virginia.

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

Williams 225280 v. Washington · filed 2020-06-09(b)

Venue for a civil action brought in federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Venue is therefore proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, not this Court.

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

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Blewett · filed 2020-06-19(b)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) Idaho is a proper venue because both Donald R. Blewett and Robert W. Blewett are residents of Nez Perce County, Idaho.

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in a district solely because the plaintiff is incarcerated there when the suit has no other connection to that district.

Raines v. Wilson · filed 2020-06-29(b)

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) authorizes the commencement of a civil action in: ... Except for the fact that Plaintiff is incarcerated here, this case has no connection with this district.

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

U.S. Specialty Insurance Company v. Aerial Timber Applicators, Inc. · filed 2020-07-08(b)(1)

Venue is manifestly proper in this district under § 1391(b)(1) because Aerial Timber, the lone Defendant, is domiciled in North Dakota.

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

Eliason v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2020-07-13(b)(1)

Regardless of whether Defendant LDS Corporation “resides” in Hawai‘i, i.e., is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction, § 1391(b)(1) does not provide a basis for venue because all Defendants are not residents of Hawai‘i.

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

Richards 641715 v. Whitmer · filed 2020-07-15(b)

The proper venue for civil actions in which jurisdiction is not based on diversity of citizenship is the judicial district where: (1) any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property in question is situated; or (3) any defendant may be found if there is no other district in which plaintiff may bring the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Venue, therefore, is proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

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

SM FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF TEXAS · filed 2020-07-16(b)(1)

Defendant also concedes that venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, as “the federal district embracing Richardson, Texas, where Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas maintains offices.” ... 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 district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state.

LEGO A/S v. OYO Toys, Inc. · filed 2020-07-17(b)(1)

Finally, venue is generally proper in a district where “any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). As a result, this action “might have been brought” in the District of Massachusetts.

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in a district with no alleged connection to the defendants’ residences or the events giving rise to the claim.

Amison v. The Walt Disney Company · filed 2020-07-21(b)

Plaintiff’s claims bear no relation whatsoever to the Southern District of California. (Doc. No. 1.) Accordingly, the Court finds venue is not proper in the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488.

A business defendant subject to personal jurisdiction in a district resides there for venue purposes, making venue proper there when it is the sole defendant.

Carepoint Inc v. Carepoint Healthcare LLC · filed 2020-07-22(b)(1), (c)(2)

The court has found that Carepoint Pharmacy is subject to personal jurisdiction in South Carolina. Therefore, for the purposes of § 1391, Carepoint Pharmacy is deemed to reside in South Carolina. Thus, venue is proper in the District of South Carolina under § 1391(b)(1).

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

Smith v. FCA U.S., LLC · filed 2020-07-29(b)(1)

Accordingly, because Defendant Bosch is a resident of the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, and all of the Defendants are residents of Texas, venue is proper in the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division pursuant to § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides when the residence of an unnamed John Doe defendant is unknown and disregarded for venue purposes.

Studco Building Systems US, LLC v. 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union · filed 2020-07-30(b)(1)

As an initial matter, Studco does not dispute that this case could have been brought in the Eastern District of Virginia. Advantage is a Virginia-based company located in that district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) (“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.”).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where the defendants reside when all defendants reside in the same state.

KIDSTAR v. FACEBOOK, INC. · filed 2020-07-31(b)(1)

Here, venue would be proper under § 1391(b)(1) as all Defendants reside in California.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits venue in a suit against federal officers when one plaintiff resides in the district; under § 1391(c)(2), an organization resides where it maintains its principal place of business.

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. Trump · filed 2020-07-31(e)(1)(C)

Where there are multiple plaintiffs, only one plaintiff must be a resident of the district to satisfy the residency requirement of venue under § 1391(e)(1)(C). ... This explanation of Innovation Law Lab’s activities establishes that its “nerve center” is in Portland and that it is therefore a proper plaintiff in the District Court of Oregon. As noted above, no other plaintiff needs to reside in Oregon in order for venue to be proper here.

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

Standard Insurance Company v. Lakkaraju, MD · filed 2020-08-03(b)(1)

Because Defendant resides in the Southern District of California, he is subject to process in California and venue would be proper per 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1). In its Response, Plaintiff does not deny these claims. Accordingly, it is determined that the action could have been brought in the Southern District of California.

Section 1391(e) permits venue where a plaintiff resides when no real property is involved, and venue is assessed when the case is filed even if that plaintiff’s claim later becomes moot.

HOLOVCHAK v. CUCCINELLI · filed 2020-08-06(e)

As Holovchak resides in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, we find that venue was proper at the outset because § 1391(e) provides that venue is proper in any district in which any plaintiff resides.

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

Williams v. Hall · filed 2020-08-06(b)

The Court therefore finds that venue is improper in this district under Section 1391(b), and that transfer of this action to the Western District is warranted under Section 1406(a).

Section 1391(e) permits venue where the plaintiff resides in an action against a federal officer acting in an official capacity if no real property is involved.

PATEL v. BARR · filed 2020-08-13(e)

This provision states in relevant part that where, as here, a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States acting in his official capacity, venue is proper “in any judicial district in which … the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). ... Since Patel has alleged a plausible basis for venue based on residence, we are satisfied that a transfer is not warranted at this juncture based on the Government’s limited arguments.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) make venue improper in a district where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the civil claims occurred.

Azor-El v. Yazzo · filed 2020-08-18(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims arose in this district, this Court is not a proper venue under § 1391(b)(1) or (2) for Plaintiff’s civil claims.

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.

Ojeda v. Mendez · filed 2020-08-24(b)(1)-(2)

A review of the complaint makes clear that the District of Arizona is not the proper venue for this action. The alleged violations occurred in Kings County, New York, and all Defendants appear to reside in New York.

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

Zaoral v. Meza · filed 2020-08-26(b)

Venue is proper under 22 U.S.C. § 9003 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Respondent and E.R.G. are residing at 1069 Country Place Drive, Houston, Texas 77079, in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas.

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where all defendants reside when they are residents of the same state.

Hershal Bridges, III v. Dealers Choice Truckaway System, Inc. · filed 2020-08-24(b)(1), (c)(2)

Venue is proper in the Western District of Missouri because Defendants are headquartered in Independence, Missouri, which is within the transferee court’s district, and “all [D]efendants are residents of the State in which the district is located.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1), 1391(c)(2).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits a civil action in a district where the defendant resides.

Holmes v. Polaris, Inc. · filed 2020-08-31(b)(1)

Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Minnesota, where defendant Polaris resides, would have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s civil action and that venue is proper there.

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

Omni Technologies, LLC v. Know Ink, LLC · filed 2020-09-02(b)(1)

After all, the relevant statute provides that “[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). Here, the only defendant is Know Ink, a Missouri limited liability corporation whose principal place of business is in the Eastern District of Missouri. For that reason, the Court summarily rejects any suggestion by plaintiff that the Eastern District of Missouri would be an improper forum for transfer of venue.

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

Foreman Electric Services, Inc. v. Haliron Power, LLC · filed 2020-09-04(b)

Under that statute, a civil action founded on diversity of citizenship, like this case, may ordinarily be brought only in: (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events occurred or a substantial part of the property at issue is situated; or, if there is no district in under which an action may otherwise be brought under the venue statute, (3) any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the Western District of Arkansas is a proper venue for this case.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) permit venue where defendants reside, if all reside in the same state, or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Garanin v. Vayner · filed 2020-09-11(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that either defendant resides in this judicial district or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims arose in this judicial district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Mease v. Washington · filed 2020-09-15(b)

Venue for a civil action brought in federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Chippewa and Ingham Counties, where the events complained of in the complaint and the remaining defendants reside, are located in the Western District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1). Venue for purposes of the remaining complaint is therefore more proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan and that District is a more convenient forum for this action.

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

New Leaf Data Services, LLC v. PanXchange, Inc. · filed 2020-09-16(b)(1)

Venue is also accordingly proper in the District of Colorado.

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

Pinkerton Tobacco Co., LP v. Kretek International, Inc. · filed 2020-09-22(b)(1)

Because Defendants reside, for venue purposes, in Moorpark, California, the Court finds that the action could have been brought in the Central District of California.

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

Howard v. Vedder · filed 2020-09-29(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district 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 permits venue where a defendant resides and treats an entity as residing in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the action.

Antony v. Disney Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2020-10-01(b)(1), (c)(2)

An entity defendant such as an LLC is considered to reside “in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.” Id. § 1391(c)(2); see Hall v. Rag-O-Rama, LLC, 359 F. Supp.3d 499, 513 (E.D. Ky. 2019). Because the Defendant is a California LLC and has its principal place of business in California, it is subject to personal jurisdiction in California and the case could have been brought there.

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

Birchall v. N.Y.S. Police Inv. Fortuna · filed 2020-10-06(b)(1), (b)(2)

Plaintiff’s claims arose in Kingston, New York, which is located in Ulster County. He does not assert that any defendant resides in this District. Thus, venue is not proper in this District under either § 1391(b)(1) or § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where the sole corporate defendant resides; in a state with multiple districts, the corporation resides in a district where its contacts would support personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate state.

Thompson Tractor Co Inc v. Daily Express Inc · filed 2020-10-16(b)(1)

A plaintiff may therefore establish venue under § 1391 regardless of whether the forum is permissible under the Carmack Amendment. ... Accordingly, venue is also proper under § 1391(b)(1).

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

Grunewald v. Suffolk County Family Court · filed 2020-10-16(b)

The underlying events occurred in Suffolk County, New York, where all Defendants appear to reside. Suffolk County 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)(1) permits venue in a judicial district where all defendants reside.

Vanco v. Mancini · filed 2020-10-19(b)(1)

Venue lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because all defendants reside in this judicial district.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where the sole corporate defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Greenstate Credit Union v. Hy-Vee, Inc. · filed 2020-11-10(b)(1)

Because the court has determined that it has personal jurisdiction over defendant, the court denies its motion because venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where the defendant resides.

YAGUDAYEV v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC · filed 2020-11-13(b)(1)

Here, venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because BMW NA resides in New Jersey.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where the defendants reside when they are residents of the same state.

Interlink Products International, Inc. v. Becerra · filed 2020-11-16(b)(1)

As discussed above, venue would be proper in the Eastern District of California pursuant to § 1391(b)(1) because that is where Defendants, sued in their official capacities, reside.

Venue is improper under § 1391(b)(1) and (2) when all defendants reside outside the district and all events giving rise to the claim occurred outside it.

Smith v. Miller · filed 2020-11-16(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges that all of the events or omissions giving rise to his claim arose outside this district, and that all Defendants reside outside this district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1), (2).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where a defendant resides; an LLC resides in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the action.

Noco Company v. OJCommerce, LLC. · filed 2020-11-02(b)(1)

In this case, venue is proper because Defendant OJCommerce is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of Ohio for this suit.

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

Ericson v. Conagra Foods, Inc. · filed 2020-11-24(b)(1)

Although Massachusetts is an inappropriate venue, the record contains sufficient facts to indicate that the Northern District of Illinois is an appropriate venue in which to litigate this matter as it is the judicial district where Conagra resides, [Compl. ¶¶ 5, 7], and all Defendants are residents of Illinois, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1); [Compl. ¶¶ 5, 7, 9].

Section 1391(b)(1) requires a corporate defendant to be subject to personal jurisdiction in the district for venue to rest on its residence there.

Luke v. Sunwing Travel Group · filed 2020-12-14(b)(1)

Because Plaintiff fails to allege any facts suggesting that Defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to her claims, venue in this District is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

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

Courtney v. Courtney · filed 2020-12-14(b)(1)

The proper venue for Plaintiff’s action is in the “judicial district in which any defendant resides” or the “judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1-2). ... Because proper venue does not lie in this district, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) do not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

McIver v. Genesa Home Care Agency · filed 2020-12-17(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims arose in this district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1) or (2).

Section 1391(b)(1)–(2) 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.

Chirse v. Clemson Business Office · filed 2021-01-04(b)(1), (2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any Defendant resides in this district 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) permits venue in a judicial district where events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Williams v. Koenig · filed 2021-01-15(b)

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

Section 1391 permits a civil action in a district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state.

Menzies v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP · filed 2021-01-19(b)(1)

Venue would also be proper there as to both Defendants, because 28 U.S.C. § 1391 provides that 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.”

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

Ewing v. Nova Lending Solutions, LLC · filed 2021-01-20(b)(1)

Pursuant to statute, 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). ... The Court therefore finds the case could have been brought in Georgia based on Defendants’ residency.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) do not permit venue in a district where no defendant is alleged to reside and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Chirse v. Macklin · filed 2021-01-20(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district 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)(1) and (2) allow venue where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Chirse v. Pauselius · filed 2021-01-20(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims arose in this district, venue is not proper in this court under § 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Perry v. Floss Bar, Inc. · filed 2021-01-22(b)(1)

Venue is proper in a district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the state where the district is located. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Here, venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because all defendants reside in New York.

Section 1391 permits venue where corporate defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

FINANCIAL RESOURCES FEDERAL CREDIT UNIT v. DIEBOLD INC. · filed 2021-01-27(b)(2), (c)

For the purpose of establishing venue, “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). Because all of the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Ohio, they are also subject to venue here. Furthermore, Ohio is where Plaintiff’s funds were ultimately transmitted, and from where Diebold directed its subcontractor, thus, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred” in Ohio.

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

GSP Financial Services, LLC v. Harrison · filed 2021-01-28(b)(1)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because GSP is a Maryland corporation and Defendant resides in Maryland.

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

STURSBERG v. Morrison Sund PLLC · filed 2021-01-28(b)(1)

And § 1391(b)(1) is clear—venue is proper in a district in which any defendant resides, only if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located. Because Burton is a resident of Minnesota—not Pennsylvania—Stursberg’s contention that venue is proper in this District under § 1391(b)(1) is unavailing.

Section 1391(b) provides no basis for venue in a district with no apparent connection to the claims or defendants.

Williams v. Wetzel · filed 2021-01-28(b)

Accordingly, because there is no apparent basis for venue for these claims in this district, and because Defendants Capozza and John Doe 3 are located there, the Court will transfer Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where the sole corporate defendant resides.

Gibbons v. PSCU Incorporated · filed 2021-01-29(b), (c)(2)

This action could have been brought in the Middle District of Florida because PSCU resides there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c)(2).

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

MDG Real Estate Global Limited v. Berkshire Place Associates, LP · filed 2021-02-02(b)(1)

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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Defendants are Rhode Island residents, making the District of Rhode Island a proper venue in which to bring this case.

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

Modeste v. Michael · filed 2021-02-08(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) permits a civil action in a district where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

William Wallace, II v. Department of Corrections And · filed 2021-02-24(b)(1), (b)(2)

The district court properly dismissed Wallace’s action for improper venue because Wallace failed to establish that any defendant resides in the Central District of California or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred there.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against a federal agency in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides.

Nelson v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2021-02-25(e)(1)

Venue would be proper in this case “in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . or (C) the plaintiff resides.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) (emphasis added). Plaintiff resides in Boston, Massachusetts, which is located within the District of Massachusetts. See Defs.’ Mot., ECF No. 13, at 1. Accordingly, Plaintiff could have originally filed the present action with that judicial district.

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

Scholtes v. Michigan Department of Justice · filed 2021-03-11(b)

The proper venue for civil actions in which jurisdiction is not based on diversity of citizenship is the judicial district where: (1) any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property in question is situated; or (3) any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction if there is no other district in which plaintiff may bring the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Venue is therefore more proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan and that District is a more convenient forum for this action.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits a civil action to be brought in a district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state.

401k Safe LLC v. Pinnacle Financial Services Inc · filed 2021-03-16(b)(1)

Consequently, the Southern District of Florida is a permissible venue under § 1391.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where the defendant resides, including a district where an LLC is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.

Davidson v. Logan View LLC · filed 2021-03-08(b)(1)

Because this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, venue in the Northern District of Ohio is proper under § 1391(b)(1).

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

MEDINA v. HAAS · filed 2021-03-22(b)(1)

Its substantial contacts with this District are sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction here, even if this District were its own state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d). The Eastern District is a proper venue for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

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

Hastings v. Rarwood · filed 2021-04-09(b)

The federal venue statute provides that a civil action may be brought in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides” or in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The events giving rise to this action occurred at the OCJ, which is in Ouachita County, Arkansas.

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

Bledsoe v. Granberry · filed 2021-04-09(b)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b): ... Here, second amended complaint alleges that the defendants reside—and the events giving rise to the claim at issue took place—in the judicial district for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

Federal Trade Commission v. Illumina, Inc. · filed 2021-04-20(b)(1)

The Commission does not disagree that venue would be proper in the Southern District of California. Nor could it, seeing as Illumina is headquartered there and GRAIL is headquartered elsewhere in California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) (stating that 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”); see also 15 U.S.C. § 53(b) (permitting the Commission to bring suit, inter alia, wherever venue is proper under section 1391).

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

Thomas v. Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc. · filed 2021-07-14(b)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that all of the defendants reside within New York State and that at least one defendant resides in this federal judicial district, or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims arose in this federal judicial district, venue is not proper in this court under § 1391(b).

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.

Dickson v. Schenectady Police Department · filed 2021-07-15(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to her claim arose in this district, venue is not proper in this Court under section 1391(b)(1), (2).