28 U.S.C. § 1391

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits venue where a plaintiff resides in an action against a federal agency or official if no real property is involved.

Ortiz v. US Department of State · filed 2023-07-07(e)(1)(C)

Having concluded Mirella Camacho has standing, however, the Court concludes venue is proper in this District because Mirella Camacho satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C)—namely she resides in Idaho and no real property is involved in this action.

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

Richards v. Erway · filed 2023-07-11(b)

Relevant here, the statute provides that a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides; 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). ... Because there is no apparent basis for venue to lie in this district, but the facts alleged in the complaint suggest that venue would be proper in the Western District, the Court finds that the interests of justice would be served by transferring the case to the district where it should have been filed in the first instance. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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

Carstar Franchisor SPV LLC v. Focus Advisors, Inc. · filed 2023-07-18(b)(1)

Section 1391, which outlines the guidelines for establishing venue, states “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). ... Because all three Defendants reside in California, transfer of this case would not violate §1404(a) because venue is proper in the Northern District of California.

A forum selection clause does not make venue improper under § 1391 when venue otherwise lies where the defendant resides.

Rabinowitz v. Kelman · filed 2023-07-24

In this case, venue was proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1). That statute provides that civil actions 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.” ... Therefore, no matter the language of the Arbitration Agreement or Settlement Agreement, venue was proper in the Southern District.

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

Fisi v. Extra Space Storage Inc. · filed 2023-07-28(b)

Venue in a civil action is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... All of the events at issue are alleged to have occurred in Fort Worth, Texas. No action or injury is alleged to have occurred in this District. ... Therefore, the Court concludes that venue is improper and shall dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events or disputed property is located.

Alvelo v. Casasnovas · filed 2023-08-01(b)

Plaintiffs’ Complaint lacks any allegations that would establish the Southern District of Mississippi as a proper venue under Section 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) do not permit venue in a district when the defendants and the alleged events are located in another state.

Germaine v. City of Coconut Creek · filed 2023-08-09(b)(1), (2)

Because Defendants are employed in Coconut Creek, Florida, and the alleged events occurred in Florida, 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 in a district where a business entity resides, and treats the entity as residing in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the action.

Pratt Corrugated Holdings, Inc. v. Porter Pizza Box of Ohio, LLC · filed 2023-08-11(b)(1), (c)(2)

PPB Ohio—a business entity and not a natural person—is a resident of “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). Since the Middle District of Florida can exercise personal jurisdiction over PPB Ohio (see Section A.i.), it is also a proper venue for this action.

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in a district where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Lodhi v. Hobson · filed 2023-08-11(b)

Venue is not proper in this Court. None of the defendants resides in Maryland and, insofar as the Court can discern the events giving rise to Lodhi’s claims, none occurred in Maryland.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where both defendants are based.

Su v. World Kuk Sool Association Inc · filed 2023-08-23(b)(1)

Venue in the Southern District of Texas is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because both the Association and WKSA are based in Harris County, Texas, which is located in the Southern District of Texas.

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

K.I. v. Tyagi · filed 2023-08-23(b)(1)

However, as Defendant resides in Maryland, it is clear that the United States District Court for the District of Maryland is a proper venue for this action under § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the district where the defendant maintains its headquarters.

Chubb Insurance Australia Limited v. Accellion, Inc. · filed 2023-09-01(b)

Here, because there is no dispute that Accellion maintains its headquarters in the Northern District of California, see ECF No. 1 ¶ 2, venue is proper in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Holder v. Bacus Foods Corporation · filed 2023-09-01(b)(1), (c)(2)

As all named Defendants reside in Arizona, venue is properly laid in this district. See id. § 1391(b)(1).

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

Conner v. Paxton Case transferred to Western District of Texas, Austin Division. · filed 2023-09-06(b)

A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may be brought in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, 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). ... With respect to this action, there is no nexus to the Corpus Christi Division of the Southern District of Texas. ... Governor Abbott and Attorney General Paxton reside and work in Austin, Texas, which lies within the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) do not support venue in a district where no defendant resides or conducts business and none of the alleged events occurred.

Mergenthaler v. Zimbler · filed 2023-09-08(b)(1), (2)

It is therefore clear from the face of the complaint that venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Rossetti v. Saban · filed 2023-09-11(b)(1)

Plaintiffs do not establish that all Defendants are residents of Illinois, and so subsection (b)(1) is inapplicable.

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

Navigator Business Services LLC v. Chen · filed 2023-09-13(b)(1)

As an initial matter, venue in this District is proper because “[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). Both Defendants concede in their answer to Plaintiff’s amended complaint that they reside in this District.

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

Shih v. Greater Newark Economic Corp · filed 2023-10-04(b)(1)

Because the State of New Jersey constitutes one federal judicial district, see 28 U.S.C. § 110, and because GNEC appears to reside there, under Section 1391(b)(1), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey is a proper venue for this action.

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

RAYMOND HANDLING CONCEPTS CORP. v. INVATA, LLC · filed 2023-10-11(b)(1)-(2)

Here, venue is proper in both the original and requested fora. Invata resides in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, and the events leading up to this lawsuit happened in Salinas, California. See § 1391(b)(1)-(2).

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.

Clay v. San Diego Police Department · filed 2023-10-13(b)

As such, no event or omission giving rise to Clay’s suit is alleged to have occurred in either San Diego or Imperial County, and no Defendant is affirmatively alleged to reside here. ... Accordingly, his First Amendment claim must also be dismissed, but without prejudice, as Clay could bring it in a new, separate action in the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b)(1) allows venue in multiple districts when defendants reside in different districts of the same state.

Brauning v. Brooks · filed 2023-10-13(b)(1)

Venue is thus proper in both districts, so the Court may consider whether transfer to the Eastern District of Oklahoma would better serve the interest of justice.

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

Hilltop Securities Inc v. Clear Haven Capital Management LLC · filed 2023-10-10(b)(1)

First, because Clear Haven has its principal place in business in New York City, “both personal jurisdiction and venue” lie in the Southern District of New York. Haas Outdoors, Inc. v. Dryshod Int’l, LLC, 347 F. Supp. 3d 266, 273 (N.D. Miss. 2018); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1); Doc. 1, Compl., ¶¶ 2, 4; Doc. 12, Mot. Dismiss, 13.

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

Serafin v. Realmark Holdings, LLC · filed 2023-10-26(b)(1)–(2)

Having already determined that the domestic relations exception does not apply to this case, venue is proper in this District where all named defendants reside and where a substantial part of events giving rise to the present action occurred.

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

Jackson v. State of Massachusetts · filed 2023-10-31(b)(1), (b)(2)

Venue thus is not proper in this district 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.

(PC) Bennett v. Newsom · filed 2023-11-02(b)(1)

Venue of this action is technically appropriate in the Eastern District because Gavin Newsom, the Governor of the State of California, resides in this district.

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

Wise v. Police · filed 2023-11-02(b)(2)

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

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

Pugach v. Walsh · filed 2023-11-06(b)(1)-(2)

Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that his claims arose outside this district, and that venue thus does not lie in this district under Section 1391(b)(2). The facts alleged also do not suggest that venue is proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(1) based on the residence of Defendant Walsh or any other defendant whom Plaintiff may have intended to sue.

Section 1391 permits a civil action to be brought in a district where a defendant resides when its residence requirements are met.

First Call International, Inc. v. S&B Global, Inc. · filed 2023-11-08(b)(1)

This case could have been brought in the Central District of California. 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. Here, four of the five defendants reside in the Central District of California: SBGA; SAI; Boo Yoon Choi; and Sung Jae Hwang.

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

Special Quality Alloys, Inc. v. Coastal Machine & Supply, Inc Case electronically transferred to (Western District of Lo · filed 2023-11-09

Because Coastal Marine’s principal place of business is in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, Coastal Marine is essentially at home—and thus subject to general jurisdiction—in the Western District of Louisiana. That district would also be a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

A corporate defendant resides in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction, and that residence can establish venue under § 1391(b)(1).

Smellie v. Marriott International, Inc. · filed 2023-11-13(b)(1), (c)(2)

Accordingly, the transferee court has personal jurisdiction over Marriott, and so Marriott “resides” in Texas. ... Thus, this action could have been brought in the transferee district.

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.

Cox v. Lincoln County Jail · filed 2023-11-13(b)(1)-(2)

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

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

Styles v. Tan · filed 2023-11-15(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because the alleged events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Nassau County, and all parties reside in Nassau 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) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the state containing that district.

Davidson v. Nguyen-Sperry · filed 2023-11-20(b)(1)

Here, there is no dispute that Davidson could have brought this suit in Florida, where all of the Defendants reside. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

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

Intermed Resources TN, LLC v. Camber Spine, LLC · filed 2023-11-30(b)(1)

Here, although Intermed disputes that Pennsylvania is an appropriate forum, there is no question that venue is proper in Pennsylvania based on Defendant Camber’s residence.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; the defendants’ Illinois incorporation made venue proper there.

Binder v. United States Polo Association, Inc. · filed 2023-12-04(b)(1)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), which provides, in relevant part, 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.” In this case, defendants are incorporated in Illinois, which both makes this court a proper venue and places defendants under this court’s personal jurisdiction.

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

Webb v. Baker · filed 2023-12-05(b)(1), (2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant resides in this District or that events giving rise to her claims occurred in the State of New York, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2).

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.

Howard v. S.D. Cal · filed 2023-12-07(b)

No claim is alleged to have arisen and no proper Defendant is alleged to reside in either San Diego or Imperial County. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). Therefore, 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.

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.

Gray v. V-Tech. · filed 2023-12-08(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendant is located in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania and the alleged events occurred in Queens County, New York, and East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, 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 a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Roe v. Russell · filed 2023-12-11(b)

Roe has presented no basis for this matter to proceed in the Eastern District of Louisiana. ... The events about which Roe complains occurred in Ouachita Parish. ... The defendants are indicated to be present in Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. ... The interests of justice and fairness to the parties dictate that venue is appropriate in the Western District of Louisiana.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2) make venue proper where the defendants are located or where the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Humphreys v. Securus Phone · filed 2023-12-13(b)(1), (b)(2)

The complaint plainly alleges all defendants are either located in the Eastern District of Washington or the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in that District. Venue is accordingly proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, not in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2).

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

Von Fox v. Nicholson · filed 2023-12-20(b)

It is clear from the Complaint’s allegations that no party resides in the District of Nebraska and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the causes of action did not occur in this district. Therefore, venue is not proper in this district and the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where all defendants reside, even if venue may also be proper where the events occurred.

Rodriguez v. FCM & RFED · filed 2023-12-13(b)(1)

Even if the Court did assume that the trading occurred in New York, and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(2), because the defendants are in New Jersey, where they may be subject to that court’s personal jurisdiction, venue would also be proper in the District of New Jersey under Section 1391(b)(1), and (3).

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

Fund Texas Choice v. Paxton · filed 2023-12-21(b)(1)

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[.]” At least one Defendant (e.g., José Garza) resides in this district. All SB 8 Defendants are residents of the state. (Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 167). As long as joinder is proper in this case, venue follows.

A corporate defendant subject to personal jurisdiction in a district resides there for venue purposes, allowing venue in that district under § 1391(b)(1).

Long v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij, N.V. · filed 2024-01-02(b)(1), (c)(2)

And because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in SDNY, it can be said to reside in that jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2), meaning that district could be a proper venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b)(1) does not establish venue based on defendants’ residence when the complaint does not plead where the individual defendants reside.

Jallow v. Geffner · filed 2024-01-02(b)(1)

Because he does not plead the residence of any of the individual defendants, the Court cannot assume that all of the defendants reside in New York State. Thus, it is unclear whether venue is proper in this District under Section 1391(b)(1).

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

Auguste v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection · filed 2024-01-08(b)(1), (b)(2)

Defendants do not all reside in the same State, and thus venue does not lie in this district under Section 1391(b)(1). Venue also not lie in this district under Section 1391(b)(2), because Plaintiffs allege that the claims arose in Saint Lawrence County, New York, which is outside this district. Venue thus is not proper in this district.

Section 1391(b) does not make a district a proper venue when no defendant resides there and none of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there.

Peace Love Lightning v. Officer 1 · filed 2024-01-09(b)

Based on the allegations in the complaint, the Court finds that venue is improper. There is no dispute that none of the defendants reside here and none of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred here.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state; under subsection (c)(2), a corporate defendant resides in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the case.

Moore v. HUB Group, Inc. · filed 2024-01-11(b)(1), (c)(2)

The Court begins with the question of whether venue is proper in the Southern District of Illinois. It is. 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). A defendant is deemed to reside in any judicial district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the particular case. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2); see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d). Hub, the only defendant, resides in and is a citizen of Illinois, the state in which this court is located. Further, it likely resides in the Southern District of Illinois because it is likely subject to personal jurisdiction here in light of its business activities here. Therefore, venue is proper, and dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is not warranted.

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

Sands v. Forest River, Inc. · filed 2024-01-12(b)(1)

Venue is proper in a civil action in any “judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Forest River is incorporated in Indiana with its principal place of business in Elkhart, Indiana. ECF No. 1 ¶ 2. Thus, the proposed transferee court—the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division—is one in which the action originally may have been brought.

Section 1391(c)(2) treats a defendant as residing in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Klauber Brothers, Inc. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in Schedule "A" · filed 2024-01-17(c)(2)

A defendant is deemed to reside in any district where they are subject to personal jurisdiction.

Section 1391(b)(1) does not permit venue in a New York district when not all defendants reside in New York.

Azcona v. State of NJ · filed 2024-01-26(b)(1)

Because not all of the defendants are residents of New York, venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(e)(1)(A) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides.

Deonarine v. United States Postal Service · filed 2024-01-26(e)(1)(A)

Plaintiff, who resides in Queens County, appears to sue Postmaster General Louis DeJoy and the USPS, but he does not allege facts showing where either defendant resides, though it is clear that the USPS resides within this judicial district.3 Thus, this court is a proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1391(e)(1)(A).

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

Concilio Mision Cristiana Fuente de Agua Viva, Inc. v. Ortiz-Hernandez · filed 2024-01-29(b)(1)

Both requirements are met. The fact that Defendant and his wife (a defendant that has not been served) live in SDFL5 would have permitted venue there. See (Docket No. 42 at 1-2); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

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

Jackson National Life Insurance Company v. Saccone · filed 2024-02-06(b)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1965 because Defendants reside in this judicial district.

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

Gomez v. Midlo Floors LLC · filed 2024-02-12(b)(1)

For similar reasons, venue is proper because both Defendants reside within the Eastern District of Virginia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a); Spencer v. Yellowcabservices.com, 2020 WL 13200117, at *2.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; an entity resides in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the suit.

AXA XL INSURANCE COMPANY UK LIMITED v. EXEL INC · filed 2024-02-15(b)(1)

Because each defendant conducts business in New Jersey, see Compl. Jf] 2-4, and is subject to personal jurisdiction in this state, under § 1391(b)(1), suit may be brought in New Jersey.

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

Strange v. Autocare · filed 2024-02-23(b)

“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). Here, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is incorporated in Delaware, and thus resides in Delaware. Record Document 10. Thus, this action could have been filed in Delaware.

Section 1391(b)(1) does not provide venue in a district where the defendant does not reside.

Abatayo v. Fondevilla · filed 2024-02-29(b)(1)

Defendant resides outside this district, and there is therefore no basis for venue in this district under Section 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue for mandamus and APA claims where a defendant resides or, when no real property is involved, where the plaintiff resides.

Gu v. U.S. Department of Education · filed 2024-03-13(e)(1)

Plaintiff’s claims do not involve any real property, and she does not allege that any of the events or omissions giving rise to her claims occurred in this judicial district. Thus, while Plaintiff has alleged no facts showing that this court is a proper venue for this action, she has shown that the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of New York and for the Eastern District of Missouri are proper venues for this action.2 See §§ 1391(e)(1)(A), (C).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district tied to the defendant’s residence or to a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

Cantu v. Moore · filed 2024-03-15(b)

Indeed, the proper venue for this case would be in the Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division given that the state court that issued the permanent injunction lies in Hidalgo County and both Plaintiff and Defendant live in Edinburg, Texas. Because venue is improper here, this Court could dismiss or transfer the case for this reason.

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

Trouville v. Reprosource Fertility Diagnostics, Inc. · filed 2024-03-19(b)(1)

A civil action may be brought in the “judicial district in which any defendant resides[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). ... The Court must therefore determine ReproSource’s residency before transferring the action to Massachusetts. Bozic, ... 888 F.3d at 1053.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; under subsection (c), a corporate defendant resides in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

La Michoacana Plus Ice Cream Parlor Corp v. Windy City Paletas · filed 2024-03-31(b)(1), (c)

In cases such as this one, which are based in federal question jurisdiction, venue is proper in a judicial district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). For venue purposes, a corporate defendant resides in any district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Because all individual defendants reside in California and all corporate defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in California, venue would be proper in the Southern District of California.

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

Hays v. Centurion Medical Services · filed 2024-04-03(b)(1)

As an initial matter, the court notes that venue in this district, though not improper, is also not convenient for the plaintiff, Defendant Enington, or any potential witnesses. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue may properly lie in: (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; ... Here, both defendants appear to be residents of the state of Tennessee, and Defendant Centurion is specifically alleged to reside in Nashville, within the Middle District.

Section 1391(b) bases venue on the defendant’s residence or where the relevant acts or omissions occurred; the plaintiff’s residence does not establish venue.

Humphrey v. Missouri State Highway Patrol · filed 2024-04-10(b)

As the court explained, venue is improper in the District of Massachusetts because the Defendant Missouri State Highway Patrol does not reside in Massachusetts, and none of the alleged actions or omissions – an arrest in Missouri – occurred in the District of Massachusetts.

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.

McCarthy v. Qatar Airways, Q.C.S.C. · filed 2024-04-15(b)

The Court also notes that Plaintiff has not alleged any facts suggesting that venue lies in this District. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1391. She alleges that the events giving rise to her claims occurred in Israel and that Defendant is located in Qatar. The facts alleged in the complaint do not suggest that any part of the events giving rise to her claims took place in this District, § 1391(b)(2), or that venue is proper in this district based on the residence of Defendant, § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on where a defendant resides or where the acts or omissions underlying the action occurred.

(PS) Humphrey v. Modesto Police Department · filed 2024-04-16(b)

As the court previously explained, venue is improper in the District of Massachusetts because the Defendant does not reside in Massachusetts, and none of the alleged actions or omissions – an arrest in California – occurred in the District of Massachusetts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (venue is typically premised on, among other things, the judicial district where the defendants reside, or where the acts and omissions occurred).

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

McCarthy v. Kaplan · filed 2024-04-25(b)(1)

Because it is unknown if any Defendant resides in this District, it is unclear whether venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(1) in this District, but because some of the Defendants reside in Brooklyn, it is clear that venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(1) in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Greenbrier Hotel Corporation v. Carter Bank & Trust · filed 2024-04-24(b), (c)(2)

First, venue is proper where any defendant resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). A corporation is 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.” Id. § 1391(c)(2). Carter Bank’s principal place of business is in Martinsville, a city in the Western District of Virginia. Further, seven of the twelve Director Defendants reside in the Western District of Virginia. [Doc. 23 at 5, n.2]. Therefore, venue is proper in the Western District of Virginia.

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

Abira Medical Laboratories, LLC v. Integranet Health of Florida, Inc. · filed 2024-04-30(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), 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.” ... Thus, venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas.

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.

(PC) Wilson v. Castro · filed 2024-05-06(b)

Venue generally is proper in a judicial district in which: (1) any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The named defendants likely reside in Kern County, where KVSP is located, and the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim(s) also occurred at KVSP in Kern County. Kern County lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Venue therefore properly lies in the Eastern District.

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

One Triple Two, LLC v. Divel III · filed 2024-05-13(b)(1)

Therefore, venue is proper in the District of Maryland, and the complaint will not be dismissed for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3).

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

Dupree v. Behaviorally · filed 2024-05-13(b)(1), (2)

Because nothing in Plaintiff’s complaint suggests that the alleged unlawful employment practices took place in the State of New York or that Defendant is a resident of State of New York, it is clear that venue is not proper in this court under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) or Section 1391(b)(1), (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 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Soto v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 2024-05-17(b)(1)–(2)

The Court agrees because the Eastern District is not a judicial district where (1) Defendant is domiciled or (2) where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where the defendant resides; a defendant’s principal place of business in the district supports that finding.

Guerra v. The Steelstone Group, LLC d/b/a Gourmia · filed 2024-05-22(b)(1)

Venue is proper in this district because Gourmia’s principal place of business is located within this district, and as such, it is a resident of this district.

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

Song v. Kranz · filed 2024-05-22(b)(1)

Venue is proper in the Central District of California, where Defendant is alleged to reside. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district where no defendant resides and no events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred when another district is available.

Perry v. Brown · filed 2024-05-24(b)

He fails to allege that any “events or omissions giving rise to [his] claim” took place in this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Miles v. WTMX Radio, 15 F. App’x 213, 215 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, venue is not proper in the Eastern District of Michigan.

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

(PC) Jones v. Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility · filed 2024-05-28(b)

Venue would then be improper in this district because no defendant would be found here. Venue would also be improper because the claims for which plaintiff seeks relief took place in the Southern District, during plaintiffs incarceration at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego.

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

Abira Medical Laboratories, LLC v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company · filed 2024-05-29(b)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), 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.” ... Plaintiffs Amended Complaint raises a federal question (under the FFCRA and CARES Act in Count Eight) and alleges that Defendant has its principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. ... Thus, venue is proper in the District of Nebraska.

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

Ouellette v. Michigan Department of Corrections Parole Board · filed 2024-05-30(b)(1)

As relevant to the present action, members of the Michigan Parole Board “reside” in, and the Parole Board’s office is located in, Ingham County, Michigan. Similarly, the warden for Marquette Branch Prison “resides” in—and Ouellette is incarcerated at the Marquette Branch Prison based in—Marquette County, Michigan. Both Ingham County and Marquette County are within the Western District of Michigan.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2) do not establish venue in a district when the complaint alleges neither a defendant’s residence there nor events giving rise to the claim there.

Lavi v. DWS · filed 2024-05-31(b)

There are no allegations in the complaint indicating that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1) or Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(e)(1) makes venue proper in a district where federal officer defendants reside.

Gray v. Mayorkas · filed 2024-06-10(e)(1)

Venue is proper in the District of Columbia because Defendants Mayorkas and Garland, reside here.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits venue where the plaintiff resides when the action does not involve real property.

Kumar v. Garland · filed 2024-06-12(e)(1)(C)

In addition, because Plaintiff’s claims do not appear to involve real property, and because Plaintiff resides in Queens County, within the Eastern District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 112(c), under Section 1391(e)(1)(C), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is again a proper venue for this action.

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

Eugenia Song v. Rand Corp. · filed 2024-06-14(b)(1)

Thus, under Section 1391(b)(1)(A), venue for this action lies in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence only when all defendants reside in the forum state, or based on events when a substantial part of them occurred in the district.

Buckner v. New York Administration for Childrens Services · filed 2024-06-18(b)

Venue of Plaintiff’s claims against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania CYS and the Hanover Area School District does not lie in this district under Section 1391(b)(1) because all Defendants do not reside in the State of New York. Venue of Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants is also not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(2) because these claims, which include allegations about medical treatment or neglect of the children in Pennsylvania, arise outside this district.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where the sole defendant resides; subsection (d) defines corporate residence in a state with multiple districts.

Nachison v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 2024-06-24(b)(1)

Third, venue would be proper in the Northern District of Texas. 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), or in “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)(2). For purposes of venue in a state with more than one judicial district, a corporation “shall be deemed to reside in any district in that State within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d). Because the sole defendant in this case (AA) resides in Fort Worth, Texas, in the Northern District of Texas, venue would be proper in the Northern District of Texas.

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

BuzzBallz, LLC v. MPL Brands NV, Inc. · filed 2024-07-02(b)(1)

The Court finds that venue would have been proper in NDCA under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Patco—the only defendant in this case—resides in NDCA.

A district where one defendant resides is a proper venue under § 1391(b)(1) only if all defendants reside in that state.

Sims v. Starr (MAG+) · filed 2024-07-03(b)(1)

Thus, assuming without deciding that Deputy McColough resides in Alabama, venue still is not proper in the Middle District of Alabama because the record contains insufficient allegations to show that all defendants reside in Alabama.

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

Rosenberg v. Garmin International, Inc. · filed 2024-07-03(b)(1)

Consequently, Garmin is subject to personal jurisdiction in Kansas and “resides” there for venue purposes. ... Therefore, Plaintiff could have filed this action in the District of Kansas, had he so desired.

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

Duncan v. South Carolina · filed 2024-06-28(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under either Section 1391(b)(1) or (2), and that, under both of those provisions, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina is the proper venue for this action.

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

Flenaugh v. Eacrett · filed 2024-07-03(b)

The Court cannot establish has personal jurisdiction over Defendant or determine why the Court would be the proper venue for this case when Defendant appears to live and work in the State of Washington, which also seems to be where the alleged events occurred.

Section 1391(b)(1) does not make a district a proper venue based on defendants’ residence when no defendant appears to reside there.

Lawtone-Bowles v. Liberty University · filed 2024-07-11(b)(1)

Because it does not appear that any defendant resides in this District, venue is not proper here under Section 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits venue in the district where the plaintiff resides in a suit against a United States officer or employee involving no real property; for an individual, residence means domicile under § 1391(c)(1).

Wollersheim v. Garcia · filed 2024-07-17(e)(1)(C)

In response, Wollersheim argues that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C), which provides that in a case where the defendant is a United States officer or employee, venue is proper “in any judicial district in which . . . the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” For venue purposes, residency for an individual means “the judicial district in which that person is domiciled.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1). “A person’s domicile is her permanent home, where she resides with the intention to remain or to which she intends to return.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). Wollersheim presents evidence that although he currently works and lives in Colorado, his domicile is Nevada. See ECF No. 12 at 10-17. He therefore has adequately shown venue is proper in this court.

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

Myers v. National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. · filed 2024-07-31(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). Defendants are Florida limited liability companies with offices located within the Middle District of Florida. Additionally, NASCAR, LLC’s headquarters is in Daytona Beach, Florida. Therefore, venue would be proper in the Middle District of Florida.

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

JACKSON v. DIXON · filed 2024-07-12

Venue in this case is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d), which states in relevant part 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(d)(1). That’s the case here.

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.

Muir v. Rewerts · filed 2024-07-22(b)

All of the defendants reside in Montcalm County for purposes of the present complaint and the events giving rise to the complaint occurred there. Montcalm County is located in the Western District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1). Venue is therefore proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, not this Court.

Section 1391(b) does not make a plaintiff’s preferred district a proper venue when no defendant resides there and none of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there.

Le v. Sacramento Mental Health Treatment Center · filed 2024-08-01(b)

Although the Court has not ordered the Clerk’s Office attempt service of process, the Western District of Washington is neither a judicial district in which any defendant appears to reside nor where any portion of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Etienne v. North Carolina Dept. of Administration · filed 2024-08-06(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants appear to be residents of North Carolina, where the alleged events occurred, 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 judicial district where any defendant resides.

BASF Corporation v. The Original Fender Mender, Inc. · filed 2024-08-10(b)(1)

Venue is proper in this district because Defendant resides in this district.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in the district where the sole defendant is headquartered.

OV Loop, Inc. v. Mastercard Incorporated · filed 2024-08-14(b)(1)

Mastercard, the only Defendant, is headquartered in Purchase, New York; therefore, the case could have been brought in the Southern District of New York. 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.

Great Midwest Insurance Company v. WB Contracting Group, Inc. · filed 2024-08-14(b)(1)

Third, venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all defendants reside in this District.

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

Continental Casualty Company v. Lockheed Martin Corporation · filed 2024-08-19(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 Lockheed resides in Maryland, venue would have been proper had Continental sued it in the District of Maryland.

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

COLUR WORLD, LLC v. Schneider Medical Industries · filed 2024-08-21(b)(1)

Venue is similarly appropriate due to SMI’s ties to California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(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[.]”).

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

NDF1, LLC v. Cunningham · filed 2024-08-26(b)(1)

Here, all Defendants reside in New York (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 3-8), and venue is therefore proper in this district.

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

Robinson v. Van Langen · filed 2024-08-30(b)

Venue is clearly proper in the District of Nebraska as the defendants are located in this district and the events that are the subject of the Complaint occurred here. As such, the Court finds that a change in venue is not warranted.

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

Ontel Products Corporation v. ZPS Commerce SIA · filed 2024-08-22(b)(1)

Venue is proper (1) where “any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located,” ... 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Accordingly, the District of Minnesota is a proper venue for this action given that both defendants are considered residents of the state of Minnesota.

Under § 1391(b)(1), the plaintiff’s residence alone does not establish venue; the defendant’s residence matters.

FRIEDMAN v. CHOAI · filed 2024-08-22(b)(1)

Plaintiff alleges he is a citizen or resident of New Jersey, but it is Defendant’s residency that matters for venue.

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

Mckenzie v. T-Mobile · filed 2024-09-11(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, not this court, is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1). In addition, because Plaintiff alleges that the events that are the bases for her claims occurred in Jamaica, Queens County, New York (Id. at 5), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is also a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2). As Plaintiff does not allege that any of the events that are the bases for her claims occurred within this judicial district, this court is not a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(1) does not establish venue in a district outside the state where all defendants reside.

Elmore v. Universal Services of America, LP · filed 2024-09-18(b)(1)

Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants are citizens of California, and thus venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(1).

An entity defendant resides in any judicial district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction, allowing venue there under subsection (b).

Bowser v. Foundation Building Materials, LLC · filed 2024-09-20(c)(2)

An entity is deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C §1391(c)(2). Thus, because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Middle District of Tennessee, venue is also proper there.

Section 1391 permits venue where the only defendant resides and treats a corporate defendant as residing in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Kimble v. Opteon Appraisal, Inc. · filed 2024-09-20(b)(1), (c)(2)

Since Opteon is the only defendant, venue is proper where Opteon resides. ... A corporation, like Opteon, “shall be deemed to reside … in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2). Kimble may thus sue Opteon in the Northern District of Illinois because Opteon maintains its principal place of business there.

Section 1391(b) bases venue on a defendant’s residence or where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, not the plaintiff’s residence.

Moqaddem v. Solorzano · filed 2024-09-18(b)

Venue is not determined by Plaintiff's residence, but by either the residence of the defendant(s) or the ... location of the relevant events and omissions.

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

Johnson v. Phillips · filed 2024-09-25(b)

The Court concludes that the District of New Mexico is not a proper venue for this case because Defendant does not reside in the District of New Mexico and there are no allegations that any of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the District of New Mexico.

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in a district where the defendant does not reside and none of the alleged events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Johnson v. Quality is Our Recipe LLC · filed 2024-09-25(b)

The Court concludes that the District of New Mexico is not a proper venue for this case because Defendant does not reside in the District of New Mexico and there are no allegations that any of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the District of New Mexico.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) does not allow a plaintiff without standing to establish venue based on its residence.

State of Missouri v. United States Department of Education · filed 2024-10-02(e)(1)(C)

Without standing, Georgia cannot provide the proper venue for suit because a plaintiff that lacks standing cannot create venue where it would not otherwise exist.

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

Howard v. Combs · filed 2024-10-03(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not plead that any Defendant resides in this district, or that the alleged events occurred 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.

Chaffee v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2024-10-03(b)(1)

Venue is therefore proper in every judicial district in the State of New York under Section 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in the district where a corporate defendant has its principal office.

Sewell, Marcus v. Wilderness Development Corporation · filed 2024-10-07(b)(1)

Venue here is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), because Wilderness is incorporated in Wisconsin and its registration with the state says that its principal office is in the Western District.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, when another district is available.

Lewis v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2024-10-09(b)(1)-(2)

Because Defendants are in the Western District and the complaint concerns events arising there as well, venue is not proper in this district.

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

Morris v. King Oak Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2024-10-11(b)(1)-(2)

Venue is also proper in this judicial district because Defendant is incorporated in Maryland, ECF No. 1 ¶ 6, Defendant’s principal place of business—the Ebony Inn—is in Prince George’s County, Maryland, id. ¶ 6, and the events giving rise to this claim occurred at the Ebony Inn in Prince George’s County, Maryland, id. ¶¶ 7-14. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2).

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) do not permit venue in a district where no defendant is alleged to reside and none of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Beitia v. South Shore Mitsubishi, Lease with Ease Auto · filed 2024-10-15(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because she does not allege that any defendants reside in this District or that the events giving rise to her claims occurred in this District, 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 any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state.

Person v. Strada · filed 2024-11-18(b)(1)

This case falls under the first Section 1391(b) category above, as all Defendants––TDOC, Commissioner Strada, and the three MCCX officials––reside in this state. Venue in this District is not improper because TDOC and Strada reside here.

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

Olvera v. Henderson County Texas · filed 2024-11-26(b)(1)

Accordingly, because all Defendants reside in Texas and some Defendants reside specifically in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, venue is proper under section 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits venue in the plaintiff’s home district in an action against a federal agency when no real property is involved.

Dawoud v. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2024-12-03(e)(1)(C)

Because Plaintiffs reside in the Northern District of Illinois and because “no real property is involved in the action,” venue is proper in that district.

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

Lyons v. Sade · filed 2024-12-04(b)(1)

While Plaintiff does not specify where within the State of New York Sade resides, because he alleges that Vero Capital and Elite Street Capital reside in New York, New York (ECF 7, at 4),2 within this judicial district, see 28 U.S.C. § 112(b), this court is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1).

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

Curne v. Small Business Administration · filed 2024-12-10(b)

As for the Bivens action against the two John Doe federal agents, the government is correct that venue is improper in the District of Columbia. ... The general federal venue statute establishes three categories under which venue is proper in a civil action in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Both cities are located in the Western District of Missouri, see Fed. Defs.’ MTD at 16, meaning that venue would be proper in that district.

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

Ad Hoc Research Associates, LLC v. Gertis · filed 2025-01-14(b)(1)

As a preliminary matter, this action could have been brought in the District of South Carolina where Respondent is a resident.

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

HOWARTH v. FIELDS · filed 2025-01-17(b)(1)

Because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant, venue is improper under § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391 permits a civil action in a district where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Emrit v. Musk · filed 2025-01-23(b)

As stated, the Complaint does not allege that any defendant resides in Oregon, nor that any event occurred in Oregon. This Court is therefore not the proper venue for this matter.

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

Govan v. The State of New York · filed 2025-02-03(b)

Additionally, a civil action must be filed in the judicial district in which any defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Elmira Correctional Facility is located in Chemung County, which is in the Western District of New York.

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

Convenience Stores Leasing & Management LLC v. Singh · filed 2025-02-12(b)(1)

While Defendants rely on § 1391(b)(2), I find that § 1391(b)(1) is dispositive here. ... Thus, personal jurisdiction and venue are proper in the Southern District of Indiana because both Defendants are Indiana residents.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides; New Mexico was improper because the defendants resided in Colorado.

Johnson v. Babcok · filed 2025-02-24(b)(1)

Subsection (b)(1) is not satisfied. The parties reside in Colorado, and this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over any Defendant.

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

Eakin v. Cook Medical L L C · filed 2025-02-28(b)(1)

The threshold issue of whether Plaintiff could properly sue Defendant in the Southern District of Indiana is easily satisfied because Defendant maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in that district.

Section 1391 permits a civil action where the defendant resides and treats a business entity as residing in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for that action.

Shelton v. Freedom Forever LLC · filed 2025-03-04(b)(1), (c)(2)

This action could have been brought in the Central District of California. Under 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.” ... A business entity is “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). ... California therefore has general personal jurisdiction over Freedom Forever, so venue is proper in the Central District.

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

Smith v. Kompassionate Care LLC · filed 2025-03-12(b)(1)

Smith alleges that Gail is a resident of Illinois, which eliminates 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) as a basis for venue.

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where a defendant resides; a corporate defendant’s headquarters can establish that venue.

COUSINS v. SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION · filed 2025-03-26(b)(1), (c)

This action could have been brought in the District of Connecticut. Sikorsky has its headquarters there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (c).

Section 1391(c)(1) treats a natural person as residing, for venue purposes, in the judicial district where that person is domiciled.

Mitchell v. Riser Motors, Inc. · filed 2025-03-31(c)(1)

The Court notes that because Plaintiff has presented a prima facie case that Separate Defendant is domiciled in Arkansas at the time of filing, all three Defendants would now be domiciled in Arkansas and venue is proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1) (“A natural person . . . shall be deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled.”).

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

ARKEMA INC. v. MAVIRO CATALYST INC. · filed 2025-05-08(b)(1), (c)(2)

Here, as set forth above, Maviro is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction under the MPSA’s forum selection clause. Therefore, it resides in this judicial district, making venue proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

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

Russ v. Nike, Inc. · filed 2025-05-14(b)(1)

Thus, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1).

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.

Greene v. Eastside Orthopedic Medical Associates · filed 2025-05-22(b)

Under these venue provisions, venue is proper only in California.

An entity defendant resides for venue purposes in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the action, making venue proper there under § 1391(b)(1) when it is the sole defendant.

TORCUP, INC. v. PRESCO ENGINEERING, INC. · filed 2025-05-27(b)(1), (c)(2)

Having found, therefore, that this Court has specific jurisdiction over Presco, I now hold that Presco is considered a resident of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2) for the purposes of determining venue, and venue is thus proper according to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

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

Friedeberg v. T.J. Maxx · filed 2025-05-30(b)(1)

Thus, while it is unclear that this court is a proper 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 that provision.

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

KREIDER v. GREEN ROBIN HOMES, LLC · filed 2025-06-04(b)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), since all defendants are residents of Pennsylvania, and since at least one of the defendants lives within the Eastern District, venue is appropriate here.

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

Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. v. Black Connections LLC · filed 2025-06-10(b)(1)

For similar reasons, venue is proper because Black Connections resides within the Eastern District of Virginia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a); Spencer, 2020 WL 13200117, at *2.

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

Jeremiah v. Toppel · filed 2025-06-20(b)(1)

Given that all defendants reside here, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(1) and Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue is denied.

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

Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Nolen · filed 2025-07-01(b)

But taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, none of the Defendants reside in the Northern District of Oklahoma, none of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the Northern District, and there are no allegations about where any relevant property is. However, the events giving rise to the claim did occur in Haskell County, one of the defendants resides in Haskell County, and one of the defendants resides in Pittsburg County. Haskell and Pittsburg Counties are in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, 28 U.S.C. § 116(b), so venue is proper there.

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

Greene v. St. Vincent De Paul - Cardinal Manning Center · filed 2025-07-07(b)

Plaintiff has not established that venue is proper in this Court. Defendant resides in California and the events complained of occurred in California. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(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; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction. Under these venue provisions, venue is proper only in California.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and none of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Abouloh v. Lehigh County Prison · filed 2025-06-30(b)

Based upon the Court’s preliminary review of the facts alleged in the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this judicial district, as no Defendant resides in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and none of the events or omissions giving rise to Abouloh’s claims occurred in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

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

Konate v. Beattie · filed 2025-07-07(b)(1)-(2)

But as relevant here, 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,” 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). Thus, because Defendants appear to reside in Fayette County, Kentucky, and the alleged conduct leading to Konate’s complaint took place in Fayette County, Kentucky, venue lies in the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendant does not reside and none of the events giving rise to the claim occurred when another proper district is available.

Greene v. 7-Eleven · filed 2025-07-07(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may be brought in: ... This case does not satisfy any of the statutory venue requirements.

Section 1391(b) does not provide venue in a district with no connection to the remaining defendants or the events underlying the remaining claims.

Camarao v. State of New Jersey · filed 2025-07-09(b)

Because the claims against the New Jersey Defendants are dismissed and because the remaining Defendants appear to have no connection to New Jersey (see generally ECF No. 1 (outlining events that occurred in Florida and New Jersey and defendants located within those two states)), venue in this District is improper.