28 U.S.C. § 1391

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

RAVE PAK, INC v. BUNZI DISTRIBUTION NORTHEAST, LLC · filed 2021-08-09(b)(1)

Moreover, Defendant is a Missouri limited liability company headquartered in St. Louis, and therefore, the Eastern District of Missouri is a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

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

Burgest v. U.S.P. Atlanta, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta Georgia-F.B.O.P. · filed 2021-08-20(b)

Upon a careful consideration of the Complaint, the R & R, and Plaintiff’s objections to the R & R, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that venue is improper in the District of South Carolina. ... In this case, none of the Defendants listed in the Complaint are alleged to be residents of South Carolina, but rather Atlanta Georgia. (Dkt. No. 1). In addition, the complaint alleges a substantial amount of the events giving rise to the action occurred in Georgia. (Dkt. No. 1).

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

Watkins v. Westin · filed 2021-08-26(b)(1)

All Defendants presently reside in the Eastern District of California, which makes venue proper there. 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) and (2) permits venue where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Fisher v. Miller · filed 2021-09-09(b)(1) and (2)

Venue is proper in a judicial district in which “any defendant resides” or “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred ...” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2). ... The Eastern District of Michigan is not the proper venue for this action. Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the proper venue is with the Southern District of New York.

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

Campbell v. Khan · filed 2021-09-09(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 or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

HEEG v. UNITED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. · filed 2021-09-14(b)(1)–(2)

Venue for a civil action in federal court is proper in the "district in which any defendant resides" or the "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). ... Here, the complaint alleged that Defendant resides in Lansing, Michigan.

Section 1391(e) permits venue where the plaintiff resides in a suit against a federal governmental entity if no real property is involved.

Pope v. Office of Doug Lamborn, U.S. House of Representatives · filed 2021-09-15(e)

Under that section, venue is proper in any 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 if no real property is involved in the action.” As Pope resides in Colorado and no real property is involved, venue is proper in the District of Colorado under at least one test.

Section 1391 permits venue in the judicial district where a defendant resides, with an entity’s residence determined under subsection (c)(2).

Vision Import Group, LLC v. The Fresh Group, Ltd. · filed 2021-09-21(b)(1), (c)(2)

Accordingly, the Court finds that venue is proper in this Court not under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) which Plaintiff references, but rather under §§ 1391(b)(1) and 1391(c)(2) because Defendant is deemed under those subsections to reside in McAllen, Texas and venue is proper in the judicial district in which ... Defendant resides.

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

Kincheloe v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 2021-09-23(b)

Finally, venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas because American resides in that district and is the only defendant in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Accordingly, the case could have been brought in 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.

Lopez v. CMI Leisure Management, Inc. · filed 2021-10-04(b)(1)

Because the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida is the judicial district in which Defendants reside, this Court finds that the venue is proper.

In an action against a federal agency or official that involves no real property, venue is proper in a district where the plaintiff resides.

Khamoush v. Mayorkas · filed 2021-10-08(e)(1)

In actions that raise a federal question by naming a federal agency or a United States official in his or her official capacity as a defendant, venue is proper in any judicial district where: “(1) a defendant in the action resides; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property that is subject of the action is situated; or (3) a plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. §1391(e)(1)) (internal quotations omitted). Here, Khamoush resides in the Transferee District, and therefore, “this case might have been brought in that district.” Consent Mot. at 2 (internal quotations omitted).

Section 1391(e)(1)(c) permits venue in the district where the plaintiff resides in a suit against federal officials if no real property is involved.

Yang v. Jaddou · filed 2021-10-14(e)(1)(c)

Because Plaintiff resides in Queens County, New York, venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York under Section 1391(e)(1)(c).

For an action against one defendant, § 1391(b)(1) does not establish venue in a district where that defendant does not reside.

VECTRA VISUAL, INC. v. HOVING · filed 2021-10-04(b)(1)

Defendant does not reside in the District of New Jersey, so § 1391(b)(1) is inapplicable.

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

Masing v. Trump · filed 2021-10-18(b)(1)

Venue for Plaintiff’s claims is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(1) because all defendants are not residents of New York.

Section 1391(b)(1)-(2) permits venue where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Stouffer v. Sharp · filed 2021-10-19(b)(1)-(2)

Regarding Plaintiff’s request to change venue, 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). Plaintiff has sued the warden of Oklahoma State Penitentiary, where he alleges the conditions of his confinement are unconstitutional. This facility is located in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Therefore, the Court finds the current venue for this action is appropriate.

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

United States v. Fleming · filed 2021-10-20(b)(1)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Fleming resides within the Southern District of Illinois.

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

Wabote v. Ude · filed 2021-10-21(b)(1)

Since this Court has determined that it has personal jurisdiction over Ude, venue is proper in this case 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). Ude is the only defendant, and he resides in this district. Venue is therefore proper.

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

Boundaoui v. Constellation Brands, Inc. · filed 2021-11-03(b)(1)

Venue is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), as Constellation is a resident in this judicial district.

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.

Chavez v. Defalco · filed 2021-11-05(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, venue is proper in this District under section 1391(b)(1), because the institutional entities are located within the Southern District of New York. Because the alleged events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Brooklyn, it is also clear that the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for this action under section 1391(b)(2).

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

Rushing v. Extra Space Storage · filed 2021-11-05(b)(1), (b)(2)

Plaintiff filed this complaint regarding events occurring exclusively in Michigan. Plaintiff does not allege that a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying his claims arose in this District or that any defendant resides in this District. Venue is therefore not proper in this Court under section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Rushing v. Western Michigan University · filed 2021-11-08(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because it appears from the allegations of the complaint that all of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims arose outside this district, and nothing suggests that Western Michigan University can be considered a resident of this district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Susana V. Immigration & Customs Enforcement ("ICE") · filed 2021-11-09(b)(1)

Even though ICE and the United States likely reside in this District and the corporate Defendants might be considered to reside in this District, venue is nonetheless improper under section 1391(b)(1) because Plaintiffs do not allege that all Defendants reside in the State of New York.

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

Delacruz v. Kazimierz · filed 2021-11-12(b)

As a preliminary matter, it is clear that this action could have been originally brought in the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Plaintiff alleges, and a police report confirms,4 that Defendants both reside in New Jersey.

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 claim occurred.

Oriol v. Munoz · filed 2021-11-16(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 claims arose in this district, venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

SONDHI v. MCPHERSON OIL CO. · filed 2021-11-17(b)(1)

Defendants contend, and the Court agrees, that this action could have been brought in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama because both defendants reside in Alabama, and Defendant McPherson maintains its principal place of business—and thus resides per § 1391(c)(2)—within the confines of that judicial district.* (Am. Compl. 2, 3); (Second Mot. to Dismiss, 7 n.2). As such, the Court finds that venue is proper in the Northern District of Alabama pursuant to § 1391(b)(1).

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

HiTex, LLC v. Vorel · filed 2021-11-26(b)(1)

In a diversity action, venue lies 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 the property that is the subject of the action is situated…” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... It appears to be undisputed that all Defendants reside in Oklahoma. Doc. 9 at 12. Plaintiff agrees that venue is proper in the Western District of Oklahoma. Doc. 13 at 5. Therefore, the Court finds that the Western District of Oklahoma is a district where this case might have been brought.

An entity defendant resides in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the action; venue is proper under § 1391(b)(1) when all defendants reside in the same state.

Gargoyle Granite & Marble, Inc. v. Opustone, LLC · filed 2021-11-22(b)(1), (c)(2)

Because all three defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district with respect to this civil action, all are “residents” of this district for purposes of § 1391(b)(1), and therefore venue lies in this district.

Section 1391(b)(1) requires all defendants to reside in the same state for venue based on residence, while Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

White v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement · filed 2021-12-02(b)(1), (b)(2)

Even though ICE and the United States can be considered to reside in this district, venue is nonetheless improper under Section 1391(b)(1) because Plaintiff does not allege that all defendants reside in the State of New York. Because Plaintiff alleges that the events or omissions giving rise to his claims arose in Caroline County, Virginia, venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

MaxRelief USA Inc v. O'Maley · filed 2021-12-02(b)

Venue is proper in the Southern District of Ohio as O’Maley resides in Maineville, Ohio and operates his business there.

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

Person Sr. 660430 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2021-12-07(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). ... In these circumstances, venue is proper only in the Eastern District.

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

Harvey v. Creedmoor Psychiatric Center · filed 2021-12-14(b)(1)

Because OMH can be considered to reside in this District, as well as in the Eastern District of New York venue is proper in both this District and the Eastern District under Section 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where the sole corporate defendant resides; in a state with multiple districts, corporate residence depends on whether the defendant would be subject to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate state.

Provitas, LLC v. Quality Ingredients Corporation · filed 2021-12-14(b)(1)

The Court finds that the Eastern District of Texas is a proper venue under § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where the defendant resides; under subsections (c)(2) and (d), a defendant's offices in that district can establish residence through personal jurisdiction.

LORD v. ACCENTURE LLP · filed 2021-12-17(b)(1)

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Defendant has two offices located in New York, New York, Find an Accenture Office, Accenture, https://www.accenture.com/us-en/about/locations/office-details?loc=New%20York (last accessed Dec. 15, 2021), and is thus subject to personal jurisdiction there per § 1391(c)(2), (d) such that venue is proper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to § 1391(b)(1), see 28 U.S.C. § 112(b); see also Cigna Corp. v. Celgene Corp., No. CV 21-90-KSM, 2021 WL 2072210, at *5 (E.D. Pa. May 24, 2021) (“[T]he Court finds that venue is proper in the District of New Jersey as the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that [defendant] maintains at least five facilities in New Jersey, and these facilities house [defendant]'s finance, legal, and accounting departments. These activities are sufficient indicators that [defendant] may be found in and transacts business in the District of New Jersey.”).

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, subject to its fallback provision.

El v. Woosley · filed 2022-01-07(b)

Plaintiff does not allege that defendant Woosley resides in the Eastern District of Missouri, and based on the assertions of the complaint, the Court has no reason to believe he is a resident of Missouri. ... Additionally, plaintiffs claims arise entirely from events which occurred in a facility located within the State of Kentucky and presumably all the witnesses are located in Kentucky. ... None of the requirements of § 1391 are present in this case.

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

Prosperum Capital Partners LLC v. NHC Food Company Inc · filed 2022-01-13(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). Because the defendants reside or are based in the Northern District of Georgia, venue is proper there.

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

ZO Skin Health, Inc. v. Skincare Market, Inc. · filed 2022-01-20(b)(1)

To begin, because Skincare Market resides in the Central District of California, this action could have been brought there initially. 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 in any federal district in New York for a suit against the State of New York, which resides throughout the state.

Pena v. The State of New York · filed 2022-01-21(b)(1)

He sues the State of New York, which resides throughout the State of New York. Accordingly, it appears that any federal district court within the State of New York is a proper venue for this action 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.

Zarick v. DocVerify, Inc. · filed 2022-02-01(b)(1)

The parties do not dispute (see D.N. 13; D.N. 15), and the Court agrees, that this action could have been brought in the Central District of California because both DocVerify and Mayer are domiciled in Orange County, California, which is located in the Central District.

Section 1391(b) and (c) allow venue in a district where the defendant companies reside.

First State Insurance Company v. XTRA Corporation · filed 2022-02-03(b), (c)

Venue lies in the district because the XTRA companies reside there for purposes of the venue statute. 28 USC § 1391(b), (c).

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

SYLVA v. Ude · filed 2022-02-03(b)(1)

Ude is the only defendant, and he resides in this district. Venue is therefore proper.

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

Dodd v. Textron Inc · filed 2022-02-09(b)(1)

As established above, this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over TSV, and therefore the case will not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3).

When there is one defendant, § 1391(b)(1) permits venue in the district where that defendant is domiciled.

Peters v. Woods · filed 2022-02-10(b)(1)

Here, this requirement is easily satisfied because Ms. Woods is domiciled in the A.R.W.D. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) place venue where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Brown v. Sten · filed 2022-02-22(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants do not reside in this district, and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims arose outside this district, venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Schlechtweg v. Celularity, Inc. · filed 2022-02-23(b)(1)

Likewise, venue would be proper in that forum under § 1391(b)(1)—irrespective of the enforceability of the forum-selection clause of the employment contract, or the question of whether “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in New Jersey under § 1391(b)(2)—because Celularity resides in New Jersey, by virtue of it being subject to personal jurisdiction in that court.

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

Estate of Chad Logan v. Busch · filed 2022-02-23(b)(1)

Accordingly, it appears this case “might have been brought” in the District of Kansas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) (venue is proper in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, [i]f all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located”).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue based on the defendants’ presence in a district and their amenability to personal jurisdiction there.

RB RESTORATION, INC v. MOSAIC TERRAZZO AND CHEMICAL PRODUCT DECORATIVE FINISHER MASON WORKERS ASSOC. LOCAL 7 OF NEW YORK · filed 2022-02-24(b)(1)

RB Restoration is the Plaintiff in this case; the venue statute is concerned with Defendants. The proper inquiry is whether this suit filed against Defendants as defendants - could have been properly commenced in the Eastern District of New York. It clearly could have been, as Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in New York, both because they have conceded the issue and because they are located there. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Thus, this Court independently finds that venue would also be proper in the EDNY based on 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1).

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

Waters v. Leidos Inc. · filed 2022-03-04(b)(1)

Leidos resides in the Eastern District of Virginia, meaning venue is proper in that district.

Section 1391(b)(1)-(2) does not permit venue in a district where the defendants do not all reside in the state and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

White v. Core Civic Corporation · filed 2022-03-29(b)(1)-(2)

Turning to venue, the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that venue was improper in the District of Vermont because not “all [D]efendants are residents of [Vermont]” and “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Northern District of Mississippi, but not in the District of Vermont. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2).

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

Azzaretto v. Harrington · filed 2022-03-29(b)(1)

Harrington, the only defendant, resides in Kansas, so the District of Kansas is proper under § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b)(1) does not permit venue in a district where none of the defendants reside.

Doe v. City of Baton Rouge · filed 2022-03-18(b)(1)

None of the Defendants are residents of Oregon and venue is not proper under § 1391(b)(1).

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

Benjamin v. Sonnetag · filed 2022-04-07(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a) and (b), venue is proper in a district court where one or more of the defendants reside (if they are all residents of the same state), or where a substantial part of events giving rise to a lawsuit occurred. ... Therefore, the court finds that venue is improper in this district, and further that transferring this case to the Eastern District of Wisconsin, where venue is proper, serves the interests of justice.

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

Toussaint v. Mays-Stovall · filed 2022-04-08(b)(1)

While it appears unlikely that this Court would be an appropriate venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1), it is clear that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1), and likely under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) does not make venue proper where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, when another district is available.

Arrestouilh v. Adams County Jail · filed 2022-04-12(b)

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).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where a corporate defendant resides for purposes of the action.

Fertilizantes Tocantins S.A. v. TGO Agriculture (USA) Inc. · filed 2022-04-14(b)(1)

At bottom, because TGO is found to “reside” in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida.

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

Walker v. Marshall · filed 2022-04-15(b)(1)

This action, therefore, could have been brought in the Northern District of Alabama as a defendant resides in that district and all defendants are residents of Alabama.

Section 1391 permits venue where all defendant entities reside, and an entity resides in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the action.

Alpine 4 Holdings Incorporated v. Finn Management GP LLC · filed 2022-04-21(b)(1), (c)(2)

Entity defendants, such as LLCs, are deemed 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2). Thus, because all Defendants are LLCs, and because this Court has personal jurisdiction over all of them under § 27 of the Act, they are all deemed to reside in this District. Thus, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), venue is proper.

Section 1391(b) 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 claims occurred.

Ally v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2022-04-22(b)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district, that a substantial part of the events of omissions giving rise to his claims arose in this district, or that he was employed in this district, venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b) or Title VII’s venue provision.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a substantial part of the events occurred or, when all defendants reside in one state, in a district where a defendant resides.

Baskin v. United States of America · filed 2022-04-28(b)

A civil action may be brought only in: (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all Defendants reside in the state in which the Court is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided by this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the action brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The events in the complaint concerning Terris, Shirley, and Doe occurred in FCI Milan, which is located within the Eastern District of Michigan. Defendants presumably reside in Michigan. Therefore, the Eastern District of Michigan is the proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims against the FCI Milan defendants.

Section 1391(b)(1)-(2) provides venue based on defendants’ residence or where the events giving rise to the suit occurred.

BRIGHT v. CADWELL · filed 2022-05-02(b)(1)-(2)

Thus, because the allegations make clear that the events giving rise to this suit did not occur in the Middle District of Georgia, and none of the defendants reside in the Middle District of Georgia, venue is inappropriate in this district. Therefore, the transfer to the Northern District of Georgia was appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b)(1) does not make a district a proper venue when the plaintiff does not allege that the sole defendant resides there.

Finnegan v. Palm Beach County Animal Control · filed 2022-04-18(b)(1)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that PBCAC resides within this federal judicial district,1 this court is not a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1).

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

Baker v. Yale Law School · filed 2022-04-21(b)(1)

While it appears unlikely that this Court would be an appropriate venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1), it is clear that the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1), and likely under Section 1391(b)(2).

A civil action may be brought in a district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state; a corporate defendant resides in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the action.

Human Resource Advantage LLC v. The Hanover Insurance Company · filed 2022-04-25(b)(1), (c)(2)

For venue purposes, a corporate defendant, such as Hanover, 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). ... Thus, this matter could have been brought in the District of Oregon under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c).

Venue is improper under § 1391(b)(1) and (2) when the defendant is not alleged to reside in the district and no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred there.

Garcia v. Doe · filed 2022-05-06(b)(1), (2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that this 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 Section 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.

Austin Environmental Corp. v. Margarita Express, LLC · filed 2022-05-06(b)(1)

Thus, if Austin filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Middle District would have had jurisdiction because all of the defendants are located within the state.

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

Burke v. United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York · filed 2022-05-09(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 Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

Section 1391(b) did not provide venue in a district where no defendant appeared to reside and none of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Griffin v. Police Department · filed 2022-05-25(b)

The Court also notes that venue is does not exist in the District of Massachusetts. None of the defendants appear to be residents of Massachusetts, and the events or omissions giving rise to the claim did not occur within the District of Massachusetts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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.

Campbell v. Bennett · filed 2022-05-26(b)

Under the general federal venue stat- ute, 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). Here, though, none of the named defendants and none of the alleged events or omissions giving rise to Campbell’s claims have any connection to the Southern District of Georgia or the state of Georgia. Rather, it appears that nearly all defendants are located in South Carolina and that the events at issue also took place there. For that reason, venue was proper in the District of South Carolina, not the Southern District of Georgia.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district connected to the defendants or the events giving rise to the claims.

STUBBS v. SKREPENAK · filed 2022-06-13(b)

As there is no apparent basis for venue in this district over these claims, the Court will transfer the remainder of Stubbs’s Complaint to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where the events giving rise to his claims occurred and where the remaining Defendants are located.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) permit 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.

Lahood v. Lahood · filed 2022-06-23(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants reside in New Jersey and the alleged events occurred in New Jersey, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

Section 1391 permits venue where a sole defendant resides or where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, and treats a corporation as residing in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Di Severia v. Front Row Motorsports, Inc. · filed 2022-06-30(b), (c)

When there is only one defendant, venue is generally proper in any district in which the defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events or omissions underpinning the lawsuit occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). For venue purposes, corporations reside in every district where personal jurisdiction over them exists.’ Id. § 1391(c). ... As such, Plaintiffs were fully capable of bringing the instant action in the Western District of North Carolina since venue and personal jurisdiction were proper.

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

Baxter Senior Living, LLC v. Midland States Bancorp, Inc. · filed 2022-06-24(b)(1)

The Court agrees; venue would be appropriate in that district because Defendants both reside there,49 the district would have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute because it is between “citizens of different states” and the matter in ... controversy exceeds $75,000,50 and the district could exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants.

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

Yacht Basin Provision Company, Inc. v. Bates · filed 2022-07-08(b)(1)

Further, that venue would be proper as it is “a judicial district in which any defendant resides” and “all defendants are residents of the [s]tate in which the district is located.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events occurred, with a fallback district if no other venue is available.

Patu v. David · filed 2022-07-13(b)

When jurisdiction is not based solely on diversity, venue is proper in (1) the district in which any defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the same state; (2) the district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... The Court finds venue is improper and the interests of justice require this case be transferred to the proper venue.

Section 1391(b) places venue in the district where the defendants are located and the claim arose.

(PC) Medina v. Johnson · filed 2022-07-13(b)

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

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

Cunningham v. Daybreak Solar Power, LLC · filed 2022-07-14(b)(1)

Therefore, the Court applies § 1391(b)(1) to choose the proper venue. Under that rule, since both parties reside in Texas, the proper district is the district in which Defendant resides: the Northern District of Texas.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) do not permit venue where the respondent does not reside and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred.

Singer v. Ett · filed 2022-07-20(b)(1), (b)(2)

Venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Respondent does not reside in this judicial district but instead is domiciled in Los Angeles, California, which 1s in the federal judicial district of the Central District of California. Venue also is improper under § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events did not occur in New York.

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

Twitter, Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc. · filed 2022-07-22

Because the Court has personal jurisdiction over VoIP, venue is proper in the Northern District of California.

Section 1391 permits venue in the district where a corporate defendant has its headquarters.

Honeycutt v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. · filed 2022-07-28(b), (c)(2), (d)

Second, venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Michigan because General RV Center’s headquarters are located in Wixom, Michigan. (See ECF No. 8 at 4; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c)(2), and (d)).

A defendant’s employer’s location does not establish residence-based venue under § 1391(b).

Boyd v. Thomas · filed 2022-07-25(b)

But venue must be based on Sanders’s residence, not his employer’s location.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; subsection (b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Cortez v. Mills · filed 2022-08-19(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Hood County, Texas, and because the defendants appear to both reside there, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Jones v. Juno · filed 2022-08-22(b)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (venue is proper where defendants reside or where the events giving rise to the claim took place). ... Plaintiff does not dispute that all of the relevant events occurred while he was in custody at the Green Bay Correctional Institution, which is located in the Eastern District, nor does he present facts suggesting that defendant Juno resides in this district. ... Here, however, venue is improper in the Western District, meaning that § 1404(a) does not apply.

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

Bioconvergence LLC D/B/A Singota Solutions v. Singh · filed 2022-08-22(b)(1)

However, venue is proper in, among other places, “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). Singh, the sole defendant, resides in D.C., Compl. ¶ 11, so this Court is an appropriate venue.

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

SPECTOR GADON ROSEN VINCI P.C. v. AQUILINO · filed 2022-08-05(b)(1)

However, while venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, it is also proper in the District of New Jersey under § 1391(b)(1), as New Jersey is where the Defendants reside.

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.

Personal Wealth Partners, LLC v. Ryberg · filed 2022-08-26(b)(1)

Because Ryberg is not a resident of Minnesota, venue is not proper in the District of Minnesota under Section 1391(b)(1).

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

VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. BANG DIAMONDS LLC · filed 2022-08-30(b)

There is no question that venue would be proper there, as it is both the “district in which [Defendant] resides,” and the 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) permits venue where defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

AFFINITY HEALTHCARE GROUP VOORHEES, LLC v. THE TOWNSHIP OF VOORHEES · filed 2022-08-30(b)(1), (b)(2)

This Court is also satisfied that venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (2) because Defendants are residents of this District and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.

Section 1391 makes venue proper where a business entity defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the action, when all defendants reside in that state.

HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SALT SOLUTIONS, INC. · filed 2022-09-22(b)(1), (c)(2)

The venue statute defines residency for business entity defendants as “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). Accordingly, venue is proper if the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. For the reasons above, the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, so therefore, venue is proper.

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

Stennette v. New York Department of Social Services Human Resources Administration · filed 2022-09-19(b)(1)

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

Section 1391(b)(1) does not support venue for Section 1983 or Bivens claims when no defendant is alleged to reside in the forum state.

Valles v. Attorney General of the United States (S.D.N.Y) · filed 2022-09-19(b)(1)

Because Plaintiff alleges no facts showing that any defendant resides in New York State, let alone, in this judicial district, he has alleged nothing to suggest that, under Section 1391(b)(1), this court is proper venue for his clams under Section 1983 or Bivens, or that under Section 1391(e)(1)(A), that this court is a proper venue for his claims under the APA.

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

Power v. Royal Hyway Tours, Inc. · filed 2022-09-23(b)(1), (c)(2)

Under 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.” A defendant entity is deemed to “reside” “in any judicial district which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2). Here, Defendant undoubtfully resides in the Alaska judicial district because the State of Alaska is where Defendant is incorporated. Therefore, the action could have been brought in the transferee district.

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

ABOVE AND BEYOND - BUSINESS TOOLS AND SERVICES FOR ENTREPRENEURS, INC. v. CORNELIUS · filed 2022-09-30(b)(1)

Given that Defendant resides in Arizona, the Court finds that the instant action could have been initiated in Arizona. 21 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

Under § 1391(b)(1), venue is proper when a defendant waives its personal-jurisdiction defense by challenging venue without raising that defense.

Kendrick v. Amazon · filed 2022-10-03(b)(1)

Defendant’s objections do not convince the Court that the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that Defendant waived its defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, such that venue is proper.

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

SOLVE TOGETHER, LLC v. FEDEX CORPORATION · filed 2022-10-04(b)(1), (c)(2)

Venue and personal jurisdiction are proper in the Western District of Tennessee because both FedEx Services and FedEx Corporation have their headquarters and principal places of business in Memphis.

Section 1391(b) supports venue in a district where the defendants reside and events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Kissner v. WASHINGTON · filed 2022-10-21(b)

All of the remaining defendants reside in Ingham County or Ionia County, which are in the Western District of Michigan. ... And many of the alleged acts giving rise to the claims in the supplemental complaint occurred in Ionia County. So the Court finds that the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan is the proper venue or, at least, is more convenient for the parties and witnesses.

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where a defendant entity resides, including a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Pauli v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc. · filed 2022-10-25(b)(1), (c)(2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue lies, inter alia, 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). "For all venue purposes … an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued in its common name under applicable law, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question … " 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2). Plaintiff concedes this prong as Defendant is headquartered in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See Dkt. No. 18-3 at 10. The Court finds Plaintiff could have filed this action in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

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

Jean-Baptiste v. United State Department of Justice · filed 2022-10-27(b)

Venue is therefore not proper in this District under Section 1391(b)(2). Venue is also not proper in this District under Section 1391(b)(1) because all defendants do not reside in New York. Because substantial events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims took place in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, which are in the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 112(c), venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Section 1391 makes venue proper in a district where the defendant resides and has its principal place of business.

Rosskamm v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2022-10-28

The Western District of Washington retains diversity jurisdiction over this case, and venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as Defendant is a resident of and has its principal place of business in Seattle, King County, Washington.

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

RAUHALA v. GREATER NEW YORK MUTUAL INSURANCE, INC. · filed 2022-10-31(b)(1), (c)(2)

Rauhala could have brought this action in the Southern District of New York where GNY is headquartered. Venue is proper in any judicial district in which any defendant “resides.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). A defendant entity resides in any judicial district where it is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction in the action at issue. Id. § 1391(c)(2).

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

Partee v. Syght, Inc. · filed 2022-11-02(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in any “judicial district in which any defendant resides.” It is undisputed that Syght is headquartered in Colorado and therefore venue is proper in Colorado.

Section 1391(b)(1)–(2) allows 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.

Francis, Joshua v. LaFever, Brandon · filed 2022-11-03(b)(1)–(2)

Under § 1391(b)(1)–(2), venue is proper only in the Middle District of Tennessee.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) allow venue where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state, or where a substantial part of the events occurred.

Baxter v. Saratoga County Correctional Facility · filed 2022-11-03(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants are employed at Saratoga CF and the alleged events occurred in Saratoga County, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Gold Line, Inc. v. Ourbus, Inc. · filed 2022-10-31(b)(1)

Accordingly, the Court agrees with Defendant that venue would have been proper in the Southern District of New York because it is the judicial district where the only defendant resides. See id. § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in the district where the defendant corporation is incorporated and has its principal place of business.

Michigan Tooling Consultants, LLC v. Precision Metal Works, Inc. · filed 2022-11-04(b)(1)

Here, there can be no dispute that this action could have been brought in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, where Defendant is incorporated and has its principal place of business. See 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1).

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

SAINT HONORE v. M/V MSC MARIA ELENA · filed 2022-11-15(b)(1)

Thus, only Plaintiff’s claims against Expeditors could have been brought in the Western District of Washington, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) (venue is proper in any district ... in which a 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 that district’s state.

Lorch v. Olmstead · filed 2022-11-16(b)(1)

Thus, the Middle District of Florida appears to be a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1).

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

USI INTERNATIONAL INC. v. FESTO DIDACTIC INC. · filed 2022-11-29(b)(1)

Venue of this action appropriately lies in the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Festo resides in New Jersey.

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

Crawl Space Door System, Inc. v. White & Williams, LLP · filed 2022-11-22(b)(1)

Defendant White & Williams resides in that judicial district. Accordingly, it is subject to that court’s personal jurisdiction and venue would also be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

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

Scales v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · filed 2022-12-02(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because these Defendants do not reside in the Southern District of New York, and the alleged events occurred in Brooklyn, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Calderon v. Bank of America · filed 2022-12-09(b)(1)

Thus, under Section 1391(b)(1), venue for this action is proper in that district.

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

Moog Inc. v. Skyryse, Inc. · filed 2022-12-15(b)(1)

Here, all the defendants reside in the Central District of California. ... So this case certainly could have been brought in that district in the first instance. 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 in a district where any defendant resides when all defendants reside in the same state.

Brunache v. Annucci · filed 2023-01-09(b)(1)

Venue therefore is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § ... 1391(b)(1)—the judicial district where any defendant resides, if all are located within the same state.

Section 1391 does not treat these defendants as residing in a district that lacks personal jurisdiction over them, so venue there is improper.

C.T. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc. · filed 2022-12-30(c)–(d)

This Court’s analysis of appropriate venue has not changed. This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants BWI and Wyndham because the Southern District of Ohio lacks personal jurisdiction over both, meaning venue is improper as neither can be deemed to reside here. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)–(d).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where the defendants reside.

Nosirrah Management, LLC v. EVmo, Inc. · filed 2023-01-04(b)(1)

Venue would have been proper in the Central District of California because both Defendants and EVmo reside in the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2); Compl. ¶ 6.

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

Cruz v. Next Stop 2006, Inc. · filed 2023-01-05(b)(1)

All Defendants are residents of New Jersey for purposes of venue. Therefore, venue is proper in the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), and the suit could have originally been brought there.

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

Smith v. Bishop · filed 2023-01-09(b)(1)

Second, 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). Here, all Defendants are either residents of the state of Florida or maintain their principal place of business in Florida. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 9–11.) Defendant CCSI maintains its principal place of business in Riverview, Florida, located in Hillsborough County, which is within the Middle District of Florida. (Id. ¶ 9.) Venue is therefore proper in the Middle District of Florida.

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

Volland v. Fifield · filed 2023-01-13(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because the Waterford Police Department, where the two police officers are employed, is located in Saratoga County and the alleged events occurred in Saratoga County, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Kelly v. Corizon of Michigan · filed 2023-01-17(b)

Defendants and Plaintiff reside in Coldwater, Branch County, Michigan for purposes of the complaint and the events giving rise to the complaint occurred there. Branch County is located in the Western District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2). Venue is therefore proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, not this Court.

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

Mitchell v. Lamarca · filed 2023-02-08(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). ... In these circumstances, venue is proper only in the Eastern District.

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

Lavi v. Sonelgaz Group of Companies · filed 2023-02-08(b)(1)-(2)

The facts alleged in the complaint do not suggest that any part of the events giving rise to this action took place within this district, § 1391(b)(2), or that venue is proper in this district based on the residence of the parties, § 1391(b)(1).

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 suit occurred.

McDuffie, Brandon v. Elsinger, James · filed 2023-02-14(b)(1)-(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2), venue is proper in a district court where one or more of the defendants reside (if they are all residents of the same state), or where a substantial part of events giving rise to a lawsuit occurred. ... Venue is therefore improper in the Western District under § 1391(b)(1). ... Defendants have shown that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

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

Spada v. Klemm · filed 2023-02-28(b)(1)

Even though the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims allegedly occurred at SCI Houtzdale, a state correctional institution located in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and even though some of the Defendants that Plaintiff has sued are also located within the Western District of Pennsylvania, two (2) of the Defendants are located within the Middle District of Pennsylvania (i.e., Defendants Klemm and Moore), and all Defendants are located within the state of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (explaining that, for venue purposes, 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 based on a defendant’s residence only if all defendants reside in the state where the district is located.

Eddington v. Golden Bridge, LLC · filed 2023-03-01(b)(1)

Because all Defendants are not residents of the State of New York, venue is not proper in this District or the Eastern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(1).

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

Perna v. Sacred Heart University, Incorporated · filed 2023-03-01(b)

Because the Defendant is a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut, the incident alleged took place in Fairfield, Connecticut, and the lawsuit could have been brought in the District of Connecticut, the Court finds that venue in this district is improper.

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

Ailion v. Healthcare Solutions Team, LLC · filed 2023-03-02(b)(1)

Accordingly, the Court finds that, at this time, venue is proper under 28 USC § 1391(b)(1).

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

Rivera v. United States U.S. Government The United States U.S. · filed 2023-03-07(b)(1)

Thus, under Section 1391(b)(1), this Court and the Eastern District of New York (as well as the other federal district courts within the State of New York) are proper venues for Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district with no resident defendant and no events giving rise to the claims when another proper district is available.

(PC) Fayed v. Allison · filed 2023-03-09(b)

Plaintiff’s claims do not involve any defendants in this district and arose from events that occurred outside of this district. As plaintiff suggests, under the TAC, venue properly lies in United Stated District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

Reyes v. Tru by Mur, Inc. · filed 2023-03-16(b)(1)

Finally, Defendants are residents of the Eastern District, Compl. Jj 5-6; ECF Nos. 28, 30, making venue proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) supports venue in a district where the remaining defendants reside and the events underlying the remaining claims occurred.

Wester v. Brookhart · filed 2023-03-21(b)

Lawrence sits in the Southern District of Illinois, and the remaining defendants presumably reside in that district. Because no further claims or defendants connected to the Central District of Illinois remain, the Court will transfer the remainder of Plaintiff’s claims to the Southern District. ... This case and Plaintiff’s remaining claims are hereby transferred to the Southern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for any actions the transferee court deems necessary.

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

CROSSON v. TMF HEALTH QUALITY INSTITUTE · filed 2023-03-23(b)(1)

Second, 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). ... The Court therefore finds that venue is proper in the Western District of Texas.

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

Craft v. Musk · filed 2023-03-27(b)(1)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this District, venue is not proper in this District under Section 1391(b)(1). As Plaintiff alleges that Defendants reside in San Francisco, California, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) in the Northern District of California.

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

Cheng v. Mautz · filed 2023-04-03(b)(1)

Venue for Plaintiff’s claims is therefore proper in the Western District of Washington under § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b)(1) does not establish residential venue in a district where the defendant entities are not deemed to reside because they lack sufficient contacts to support personal jurisdiction there.

Ainsworth v. Union Pacific Railroad Company · filed 2023-03-30(b)(1)

Because neither Union Pacific nor John Chop is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, they are likewise not deemed to “reside” in the Middle District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Therefore, the Court finds that the Middle District of Louisiana is not a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

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

Diggs v. D.O.C. · filed 2023-04-18(b)

In other words, there is no indication in the Complaint that any connection to the state of Nebraska exists under § 1391(b) which would allow the case to remain before this Court.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence, not merely the plaintiff’s residence.

Grefer v. Chirco · filed 2023-04-18(b)(1)

But this argument misconstrues Section 1391(b)(1), which clearly states that venue is proper in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides,” not any party.

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

R2 Solutions LLC v. Allegiant Travel Company · filed 2023-04-24(b)(1)

Having already determined that Allegiant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction in this litigation, the Court agrees with R2’s assertion that venue is proper here under § 1391(b)(1).

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

Gonzalez v. Homefix Custom Remodeling Corp · filed 2023-04-26(b)(1)

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.” The sole defendant here is “a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in Laurel, Maryland.” Compl. at ¶ 8. Thus, this action clearly could have been brought in the District of Maryland, and transfer to that venue is therefore proper under § 1404(a).

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

Deaton v. Johnson · filed 2023-04-26(b)(1)

In reliance on the complaint, buttressed by the sworn affidavits of Andrews and Norvell and the declaration of Steven Johnson, JLF has easily sustained its burden of demonstrating that, at the time it was filed in Rhode Island, this case could have been brought in the Northern District of Texas based on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, with venue based on 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Specifically, Deaton has alleged that he resides in Rhode Island, ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 5, while JLF, Norvell and Andrews all reside in Texas, ECF No. 1-1 ¶¶ 6-9, with Steven Johnson and JLF residing in Fort Worth in Tarrant County, Texas, which is within the Northern District.

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

CoachComm, LLC v. Westcom Wireless, Inc. · filed 2023-05-02(b)(1), (c)(2)

Because Westcom’s principal place of business is located within the Western District of Pennsylvania, CoachComm’s advertising-related claims against Westcom could have been brought there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (c)(2).

Section 1391 permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the dispute occurred.

Kirkwood v. Buckner · filed 2023-05-11

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events, acts, or omissions given rise to this dispute took place in the Southern District of Alabama and it is also the located where all defendants are domiciled.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where all defendants reside; a business entity resides in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Wedi Corp v. Hydroblok Grand International Ltd · filed 2023-05-19(b)(1)

These allegations support treating Hydro-Blok as a resident of, and subject to suit in, the District of Nevada. As a result, venue was proper in the District of Nevada. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

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

Hall v. Buschle · filed 2023-05-25(b)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), “[a] civil action may be brought in . . . a judicial district in which any defendant resides.” Defendant is a resident of Fort Myers, Florida, which is located in the Middle District of Florida. Accordingly, the Middle District of Florida would be a proper venue for this action.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where all defendants reside.

Morgan v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · filed 2023-05-24(b)(1)

Morgan could have brought this action in the Middle District of Pennsylvania because all defendants reside there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1); Defs. Mot. to Transfer Venue 2 (“Def. Transfer Br.”), ECF No. 30.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in the district where the defendant resides when it is the only defendant.

Ramani v. CD Baby · filed 2023-06-01(b)(1)

Venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(1), however, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon because Defendant resides in Portland, Oregon, within that district.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper where neither defendant resides and none of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, when another district satisfies those grounds.

Lamparelli v. Manzello · filed 2023-06-02(b)

Notably, Lamparelli does not — and could not — dispute that venue in this District is improper, as both Defendants reside in the Eastern District of New York and all events and omissions giving rise to his claims occurred in that District.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) permit 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.

Littlejohn v. Shoultz · filed 2023-06-05(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants are employed at Cobb County Detention Center and the alleged events occurred there, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under Section 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.

McWilliams v. Sandy · filed 2023-06-09(b)(1)

Even if the Court did assume that sufficient events or omissions occurred in both Cortland County and Westchester County and that venue is therefore proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in either this District or the Northern District of New York, because Defendants reside in Cortland County, venue is also proper under Section 1391(b)(1) in the Northern District of New York.

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

Dole v. Joshi · filed 2023-06-13(b)(1)

Joshi himself claims to be a resident of Missouri, Doc. 25 at p. 2, making venue proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

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

Adams v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2023-06-14(b)(1)

Venue is proper in the Western District of Washington because Amazon resides in that district.

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

Davis v. Tricia E-Billing Solutions, LLC · filed 2023-06-14(b)(1)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the general venue statute, determines the proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims. ... With respect to the first factor, this case could have been brought in the Western District of Michigan because the Defendant resides there.

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

King v. Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service · filed 2023-06-30(b)(1)

With that in mind, venue is proper for most of Plaintiffs’ claims because (1) all Defendants to the amended complaint reside in the same state and (2) one defendant, TEEX, resides in the Eastern District for venue purposes.