28 U.S.C. § 1391

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

Moore 208380 v. Tanner · filed 2025-03-12(b)

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

Section 1391(b) places 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.

Watkins 854203 v. Cotton Correctional Facility · filed 2025-08-14(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) permits venue where the defendant officials reside and the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Theriot 423068 v. Taskilea · filed 2025-09-10(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). Here, the events underlying Plaintiff’s complaint all occurred within counties located in the Western District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b). All of the named Defendants are public officials serving in those counties, and they “reside” in those counties for purposes of venue over a suit challenging official acts, see Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U.S. 128, 132 (1885); O’Neill v. Battisti, 472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972). Accordingly, venue is proper in this judicial district.

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

Wireman 476220 v. Guerin · filed 2025-09-11(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 of Michigan.

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

Benning · filed 2025-12-04(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 of Michigan.

Section 1391(b) governs venue in declaratory actions seeking patent invalidity and noninfringement.

United Sonics, Inc. v. Shock · filed 1986-09-29(b)

As a general rule, venue in an action involving a request for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and of invalidity of the patent is governed by the general venue statute.

Section 1391(b), rather than the patent infringement venue statute, governs venue in a declaratory action for patent invalidity.

Millipore Corp. v. University Patents, Inc. · filed 1987-09-21(b)

Venue in a declaratory judgment action for patent invalidity is governed by the general venue statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), rather than the specific venue statute for patent infringement actions, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).

Section 1391(b) governs venue for a patent invalidity declaratory judgment action that also rests on diversity jurisdiction.

Lex Computer & Management Corp. v. Eslinger & Pelton, P.C. · filed 1987-11-20(b)

Since the action here is founded on a federal claim of patent invalidity in addition to diversity, section 1391(b) is the appropriate venue statute.

Section 1391(b) governs venue for a patent declaratory judgment action and permits it to be brought in the defendant’s district of residence.

Kash 'N Gold, Ltd. v. ATSPI, Inc. · filed 1988-03-25(b)

However, the action to be transferred is for declaratory judgment, not infringement. Such an action is governed by the general venue provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) which, of course, permits transfer to the district of a defendant’s residence.

Section 1391(b) governs venue in declaratory judgment actions concerning patent or copyright infringement.

Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. · filed 1993-04-28(b)

Venue in a declaratory judgment action for patent or copyright infringement is governed by the general venue statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), rather than by the specific venue statute for infringement actions at 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).

Section 1391(b) governs venue for a patent noninfringement declaratory judgment action, and subsection (c) treats a corporate defendant as residing in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

American Cyanamid Co. v. Eli Lilly and Co. · filed 1995-10-05(b), (c)

As such, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) is controlling to determine where venue is proper. ... Whether the Southern District of Indiana is a forum in which this suit “might have been brought” therefore turns on whether the Indiana court could assert personal jurisdiction over the defendants. ... Therefore, this action could have been brought in the Southern District of Indiana.

Section 1391(b) governs venue for declaratory judgment actions; venue is proper in a district where both defendants reside and are subject to personal jurisdiction.

Solow Building Co., LLC v. ATC Associates, Inc. · filed 2001-11-28(b)

A declaratory judgment action, on the other hand, is governed by the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... As both defendants can be considered to reside in and are subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of New York, ... plaintiffs second claim is properly venued in the Eastern District of New York.

Section 1391(b) governs venue in declaratory actions for patent invalidity and noninfringement.

Laseraim Tools, Inc. v. SDA Manufacturing, LLC · filed 2008-12-22(b)

Venue in a declaratory judgment action for patent invalidity and noninfringement is governed by the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... The court further finds that a majority of the events giving rise to the plaintiffs claims occurred in California. Accordingly, venue is not proper.

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

Pro Sports Inc. v. West · filed 2009-07-14(b)(2)

Therefore, the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, shall govern. Since this case involves claims of non-infringement and patent invalidity involving federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) is the applicable provision. ... Here, a substantial part of the events occurred in the District of New Jersey. The subject of the action is the Accused Products, which are manufactured by Pro Sports, which has its place of business in New Jersey, keeps inventory of the product in New Jersey, and sells the Accused Products in New Jersey. (Compl. ¶ 1,10.). This constitutes a “substantial portion of the events” giving rise to the claim. Therefore, venue in the District of New Jersey is proper.

Section 1391 governs venue in a patent declaratory judgment action alleging invalidity and non-infringement.

D2L LTD. v. Blackboard, Inc. · filed 2009-12-02

In a declaratory judgment action alleging invalidity and non-infringement, venue is governed by the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, not, as Desire2Learn contends, the special patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).

Section 1391 cannot provide venue based on declaratory judgment claims that are dismissed.

BAUSCH HEALTH IRELAND LIMITED v. MYLAN LABORATORIES LTD. · filed 2022-03-08

Plaintiffs also assert in the Complaint that venue is proper under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, considering their claims for declaratory relief. Since these claims will be dismissed, see infra Section II.C, Plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of this venue provision.

Section 1391 governs venue for a patent noninfringement declaratory judgment action when the declaratory judgment claims remain in the case.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd. · filed 2022-11-14

The general venue statute provides that “[a] civil action may be brought in. . . a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred... .” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... Here, since the Court declines to dismiss the declaratory judgment claims, the general venue statute applies.

Section 1391(b) governs venue for a declaratory judgment claim of patent noninfringement.

True Velocity Ammunitions, LLC v. SIG Sauer, Inc. · filed 2025-07-02(b)

That fact, however, has no bearing on whether SIG Sauer may bring a noninfringement claim here, since venue for such a claim is governed by the general civil venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391 governs venue for patent noninfringement declaratory judgment actions and permits suit where an entity defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Platform Science, Inc. v. Fleet Connect Solutions, LLC · filed 2025-08-11(b)(1), (c)(2)

Under § 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in any district where the defendant “resides”—which, according to § 1391(c)(2), is “any judicial district” where the defendant entity “is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.” ... Accordingly, Defendant “resides” in this District for purposes of venue.

Section 1391(b) and (c) govern venue in declaratory judgment actions for patent invalidity and noninfringement.

Emerson Electric Co. v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co. · filed 1979-09-18(b) and (c)

Venue in a declaratory judgment action for patent invalidity and noninfringement is governed by the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), ... not the patent infringement venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).

Section 1391(b) permits an action to be brought where its cause of action arose.

Fletcher v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. · filed 1986-12-01(b)

At the outset, it should be noted that this case could have been brought in the Sherman Division since this cause of action arose in that Division. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(e)(2) permits venue where a claim against a federal officer arose when substantial related activity occurred in that district and the forum is convenient.

Thibodeau v. Pierce · filed 1988-03-30(e)(2)

Accordingly, the relevant venue provision is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). ... In the present case the activities that transpired in Rhode Island in connection with this matter are not insubstantial. This claim arose out of the mortgage assistance agreement between the parties. That agreement was executed in Rhode Island on October 1, 1981. ... For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that venue is proper in Rhode Island.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the district where the cause of action arose.

Goldsborough v. Norman Carlson Matthews, Warden John Doe · filed 1988-11-25(b)

Goldsborough's further argument that the transfer of her suit to the Eastern District of Kentucky was error is also without merit, since her cause of action arose in F.C.I. Lexington, Kentucky, which is located in the Eastern District of Kentucky. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391(b); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in the judicial district where the cause of action arose.

In Re Air Crash Disaster at Detroit Metropolitan Airport on August 16, 1987 · filed 1989-08-18(a)

Clearly, this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in this dispute and venue is proper since the cause of action arose in this judicial district.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where the cause of action arose.

Piekarski v. Home Owners Savings Bank · filed 1990-08-03(b)

The federal court in Minnesota has jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1441a(Z)(l), and venue would be proper in Minnesota, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), since the cause of action arose in Minnesota.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a district where the cause of action arose.

Frazier v. Commercial Credit Equipment Corp. · filed 1991-02-04(a)

The cause of action accrued in West Virginia, so that venue would have been proper in that state under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Section 1391 governs venue for civil actions and does not create a cause of action.

White v. Renzi · filed 2022-08-24

Title 28 of the United States Code, section 1391, governs issues of venue; that is, this statute describes how a plaintiff should select the appropriate judicial district in which to file a civil action. As with the subject matter jurisdiction provisions found in § 1331 and § 1332, this provision of federal law does not give rise to a cause of action. Accordingly, White’s claim under this statute must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where substantial events leading to a contract claim occurred, including negotiations and communications, even if the alleged breach occurred elsewhere.

JLB LLC v. Egger · filed 2020-05-28(b)(2)

Here, the events in Massachusetts that led to the underlying claim, including the interview, the contract negotiations, the job offer, and the regular communications between Egger and the Owner, render venue proper in Massachusetts.

For a breach-of-contract claim, § 1391(a) favors venue at the place of intended performance over the place of repudiation.

Decker Coal Company v. Commonwealth Edison Company · filed 1986-12-01(a)

We believe that the spirit of § 1391(a) is better served in this case if venue for a claim based on breach of contract be the place of intended performance rather than the place of repudiation.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a diversity action where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; for a contract claim, the place of intended performance is relevant.

Finance & Marketing Ass'n International, Inc. v. He-Ro Group, Inc. · filed 1997-09-02(a)

The court finds dismissal is also mandated under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), which provides that in diversity actions a claim may be brought in ... Here, as discussed above, the court finds the contract only contemplated performance in New York. ... Thus, this alleged breached occurred either in New York or Lebanon, but it did not occur in Kansas.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a contract dispute arises from franchise agreements with a corporation located there.

JTH Tax LLC v. White · filed 2023-05-09(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), because this contract dispute arises from franchise agreements with a Virginia Beach, Virginia corporation.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for a breach-of-contract claim where substantial events involving the contract occurred in the district, even if the decision not to pay occurred elsewhere.

Resolution Management Consultants Inc v. Design One Building Systems Inc · filed 2024-10-11(b)(2)

And many of these events—showing the existence of a valid contract, proving RMC performed under the contract, and establishing the causal relationship between the breach and the damages—occurred in New Jersey. In fact, the only event that appears to not have a tie to New Jersey is Davin and the Companies’ decision not to pay. Thus, venue is proper in New Jersey.

Section 1391(e) does not authorize extraterritorial service of process on the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Jones v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission · filed 1987-02-18(e)

Indeed, Congress has made clear that the venue statute that permits such process against federal agencies does not apply to TVA.

Section 1391(b)(1) requires defendants’ residence in the proposed district to be established as of the date the complaint was filed.

Nobles v. Kern · filed 2020-07-09(b)(1)

Thus, Defendants must show that they resided in Florida at the time the Complaint was filed on November 7, 2019. ... In short, Defendants have not met their burden to show that this case could have been brought in Florida.

Venue under § 1391 is assessed when the action begins, and later events generally do not defeat venue once established.

Prestige Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Jules Robin, S.A. · filed 1988-04-22

Venue lies by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Circumstances of personal jurisdiction and venue are reviewed as of the time an action is commenced, and events occurring subsequently will not generally oust the court of that jurisdiction once attached.

Section 1391(a) determines proper venue under the version in effect when the action is commenced.

Paradis v. Dooley · filed 1991-10-11(a)

The issue of where to bring an action is determined when the action is commenced, which in this case was November 7, 1990. Therefore, the Court concludes that the December 1, 1990 amendment is not germane to this matter.

Section 1391(a)(1) requires all defendants named when the complaint was filed to reside in the same state; a later change in parties does not affect venue.

Horihan v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest · filed 1997-10-21(a)(1)

Accordingly, venue is proper in this court under § 1391(a)(1) only if all three defendants originally parties to this suit were Texas residents at the time Plaintiffs filed their Complaint.

Section 1391(e) permits joinder of a private defendant in a suit against the government under the Administrative Procedure Act but does not make that defendant a necessary party.

Samson Tug & Barge Co., Inc. v. United States · filed 1988-08-12(e)

However, it is apparent from the face of the 1976 amendment and the legislative history that while it authorized joinder of a private defendant in a suit against the government under the Administrative Procedure Act, it plainly did not make that defendant a necessary party.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; joining additional defendants does not change where those events occurred.

Sobaszkiewicz v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. · filed 2020-04-01(b)(2)

Finally, venue is appropriate where “a substantial part of the events or omission giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Plaintiffs allege that their causes of action have arisen and occurred in part in this district. FAC ¶ 39. Adding the ISPs does not change the location of where the causes of action arose and venue remains proper in this district.

Section 1391(b)’s general venue rules need not be applied when a defendant waives its venue objection through an enforceable forum selection agreement.

Hibbett Retail Inc v. TCH Development Inc · filed 2025-01-10(b)

Because venue is a waivable right, a normal venue analysis is not required if a defendant has waived their right to contest venue in a valid forum selection agreement. ... The undersigned concludes, therefore, that the Contract’s venue provision applies to the claims in this action and is enforceable. TCH’s motion to dismiss for improper venue is due to be denied.

Section 1391 does not require a traditional statutory venue analysis when the parties have consented to the chosen forum through an enforceable forum-selection clause.

J.D. Fields & Co. v. Eng'rs · filed 2019-06-13

However, the court need not conduct traditional jurisdiction or venue analyses when the parties have consented to litigation in a given forum.

In a diversity action, parties may consent to venue through a forum selection clause.

National Union Fire Insurance v. Frasch · filed 1990-01-23(a)

The federal venue statute provides that in a diversity action, venue lies “in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or defendants reside, or in which the claim arose.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). ... Having consented to jurisdiction in this court, the Fraschs have also consented to venue here. ... Accordingly, venue is proper here.

A forum selection clause alone does not make venue improper; courts look to § 1391 to determine whether venue is improper under § 1406(a).

Southern Distributing Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery · filed 1989-01-03

Stewart makes it clear that the presence of a forum selection clause does not in and of itself make venue improper. Stewart, 108 S.Ct. at 2243 n. 8 (court must look to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 to determine whether venue is improper under § 1406(a)). ... Because defendant’s argument that venue was improper rested solely on the existence of an enforceable forum selection clause, the court should have transferred this action to California, pursuant to § 1404(a).

A forum selection clause does not change which districts satisfy § 1391’s statutory venue criteria.

National Micrographics Systems, Inc. v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. · filed 1993-06-30

Section 1391 does not list “forum selection clauses” as a factor to be considered when determining where venue may be laid.

Section 1391(b) and (c) permit venue in a district even when the parties’ forum selection clause names another district.

Creditors Collection Bureau, Inc. v. Access Data, Inc. · filed 1993-05-03(b), (c)

There is little doubt that venue is proper in this Court if the issue is determined exclusively by reference to federal statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). ... Venue is proper in this Court, notwithstanding a forum selection clause designating Tennessee as the jurisdiction of choice for litigating disputes focusing on the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant.

Section 1391 does not treat a forum selection clause as making an otherwise proper venue improper.

Haskel v. FPR Registry, Inc. · filed 1994-09-19

Although courts have often enforced forum selection clauses by granting a motion to dismiss for improper venue, the better view is that forum selection clauses do not render venue improper and thus may not be enforced by a motion to dismiss for improper venue.

In a diversity action, a defendant’s valid agreement to litigate in a district can defeat an improper venue objection.

Newell Co. v. Lee · filed 1997-01-08(a)

In the instant ease, venue is proper in this district, the transferor district, because defendant has consented to venue and personal jurisdiction in the state and federal courts in Illinois in the Covenant Not to Compete.

Section 1391 does not prevent enforcement of a forum selection clause even when venue is proper under the statute.

Rooney v. Biomet, Inc. · filed 1999-09-16

Rooney instead argues that the forum selection clauses are irrelevant because venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The fact that venue may be proper in this Court does not, however, nullify the parties’ selection of the Indiana forum.

A forum selection clause does not make venue improper when § 1391 otherwise permits it.

BHP International Investment, Inc. v. Online Exchange, Inc. · filed 2000-07-20(a)(2)

To the extent that a district court must further evaluate whether venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), the court finds that venue is also proper. ... Defendants do not specifically argue, nor have they put forth evidence to suggest, that venue is improper pursuant to § 1391 — the substance of their argument is simply that a forum selection clause essentially preempts the federal venue statutes, precluding a finding of venue, even where otherwise proper. For the reasons stated above, the court disagrees.

Section 1391 determines whether venue is proper; a forum-selection clause does not make otherwise proper venue improper.

Brock v. Baskin-Robbins USA Co. · filed 2000-09-18

Since neither party argues that venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, a Rule 12(b)(3) motion is not the proper procedural device to enforce the forum-selection clause.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a diversity case where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if the parties agreed to sue elsewhere.

Licensed Practical Nurses, Technicians and Health Care Workers of New York, Inc. v. Ulysses Cruises, Inc. · filed 2000-11-15(a)(2)

By act of Congress, a civil action based on diversity of citizenship may be brought in a district where “a substantial part of the events ... giving rise to the claim occurred,” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2); no exception is made for cases where the parties have agreed that suit may not be brought in that district.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a diversity action where a substantial part of the events or property at issue is in the district, even if a forum selection clause specifies another forum.

Barbuto v. Medicine Shoppe International, Inc. · filed 2001-10-04(a)(2)

Under the federal venue statute, an action based upon diversity of citizenship may be properly filed “in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2). This district is where the plaintiffs reside, where the subject matter of the dispute is located, and where both parties transact business. We reject defendant’s argument that the original venue is improper because the forum selection clause specifies litigation elsewhere.

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

AC Controls Co. v. Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc. · filed 2003-09-29(a)(2)

Here, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... According to allegations in the Complaint, the parties are diverse, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to this dispute occurred in Charlotte, North Carolina. Accordingly, venue is the Western District of North Carolina is proper.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, and a forum selection clause does not make that statutory venue improper.

Southeastern Consulting Group, Inc. v. Maximus, Inc. · filed 2005-09-07(a)(2)

The parties’ contractual agreement that Virginia should be the proper venue for legal action does not override proper statutory venue in this Court. Accordingly, the Court finds that venue is proper in this action; therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be denied.

Section 1391(a)'s venue requirements do not bar venue in a forum the parties selected through a valid contractual clause.

Wells Fargo Financial Leasing, Inc. v. Orlando Magic Ltd. · filed 2006-05-19(a)

The Magic and Wells Fargo freely entered into a lease agreement with a forum selection clause under which The Magic could have anticipated litigation in Iowa. ... The clause is sufficient to render this court the appropriate venue for the pending litigation.

Section 1391 governs venue for actions filed in federal court; its use of judicial districts does not prevent a forum-selection clause naming a county from permitting venue in a federal courthouse there.

Alliance Health Group, LLC v. Bridging Health Options, LLC · filed 2008-12-15

The action at hand, however, was filed in federal court and is therefore governed by § 1391. ... We decline this ... invitation because we reject the claimed distinction between these two statutes: both speak in terms of districts rather than counties.

Section 1391 determines proper venue under statutory factors; a forum selection clause is a matter of contract rather than statutory venue.

American International Group Europe S.A. v. Franco Vago International Inc. · filed 2010-11-15

I agree with Judge Lynch’s analysis, and, therefore, address Franco Vago’s forum selection clause defense not as a motion to dismiss for improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), but as a question of whether the Court should enforce the terms of the contract entered into by the parties.

A valid forum selection clause can establish proper venue by waiving a defendant’s objection to venue.

CruiseCompete, LLC v. Smolinski & Associates, Inc. · filed 2012-05-09(b)

The Court finds Defendants’ arguments unconvincing. First, as discussed above, Defendants have not properly challenged the validity of the forum selection clause. Accordingly, that provision alone is sufficient to establish proper venue in this district because “a forum selection clause may be viewed as a waiver of a defendant’s right to object to venue.”

Section 1391 determines whether venue is proper; a forum selection clause alone does not make an alternative venue improper.

Trafalgar Capital Specialized Investment Fund v. Hartman · filed 2012-06-22

Although Plaintiff argues that a Nevada venue is improper because of the forum selection clause, this argument collapses the distinction between the forum selection clause enforceability analysis and the section 1404(a) transfer analysis. ... "A forum selection clause does not, by itself, render venue in an alternative forum improper, as venue is improper only if the statutory venue requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 have not been satisfied.”

A forum-selection clause choosing another federal district does not make venue improper under § 1391 when venue is otherwise proper in the district where the suit was filed.

In Re Atlantic Marine Construction Co. · filed 2012-11-19(b)(2)

The choice between § 1404 and § 1406 depends on whether venue was statutorily proper under § 1391 in the forum where the action was initially filed. A forum-selection clause is properly enforced via § 1404(a) as long as venue is statutorily proper in the district where suit was originally filed and as long as the forum-selection clause elects an alternative federal forum.

Section 1391 determines whether venue is proper under its statutory criteria; a forum selection clause does not make an otherwise proper venue improper.

Price v. PBG Hourly Pension Plan · filed 2013-02-06

Here, Defendants do not dispute that they “reside” in this judicial district for purposes of § 1391. Thus, notwithstanding the forum selection clause, venue is “proper” for purposes of § 1391. Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be denied.

Section 1391 determines whether venue is proper for a Rule 12(b)(3) motion; a forum selection clause alone does not make venue improper.

Bracken v. DASCO Home Medical Equipment, Inc. · filed 2013-06-27

However, a motion to dismiss for improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) will only be granted if the case was not filed in a venue prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Under §1391(b), a forum-selection clause does not affect whether a district is a proper venue.

Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex. · filed 2013-12-03(b)

Whether the parties entered into a contract containing a forum- selection clause has no bearing on whether a case falls into one of the categories of cases listed in §1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even when a contract selects another forum.

Heldt v. Payday Financial, LLC · filed 2014-03-31(b)

Here, Defendants PayDay Financial LLC, Western Sky Financial LLC, and Webb are all residents of South Dakota where this Court is located. Moreover, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in South Dakota. The District of South Dakota is not an improper venue and thus dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3) is not warranted.

A forum-selection clause alone does not make venue improper under § 1391 when the statutory venue requirements are not challenged.

Community Voice Line, L.L.C. v. Great Lakes Communication Corp. · filed 2014-05-06

It is plain, then, that AudioNow’s Rule 12(b)(3) Motion To Dismiss for improper venue is not the appropriate way for Au-dioNow to attempt to enforce the forum-selection clause. Nowhere in the portion of its Motion seeking dismissal for improper venue does AudioNow so much as mention the statutory venue requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1391, let alone assert that CVL has not satisfied them.

Section 1391(b) does not bar venue in a forum selected by a mandatory forum-selection clause, even if that forum does not satisfy its listed venue categories.

MB Financial, Inc. v. Hart · filed 2018-08-16(b)

Second, the short, explanatory, cherry-picked passage that defendants claim supports their position, when interpreted as they urge (that is, in a vacuum), completely distorts the underlying rationale of the Court’s holding: venue is proper in a preselected forum regardless of § 1391(b), and transfer should be premised on § 1404(a), not § 1406(a) or Rule 12(b)(3).

Section 1391 does not prevent parties from agreeing to venue outside its statutory categories.

Store Master Funding III LLC v. R Tequila Acquisition LLC · filed 2020-10-19(b)

Atlantic Marine prohibits parties from invalidating statutorily proper venues under § 1391; it does not, however, prohibit parties from expanding the number of available venues through voluntary agreement.

A defendant that agrees to a valid forum selection clause waives its objection that venue is improper under § 1391(b).

POLYTEK DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. 'DOC' JOHNSON ENTERPRISES · filed 2021-04-01(b)

In the case sub judice, Defendant has waived the ability to argue that venue is improper based on the existence of a valid forum selection clause. Stated in the inverse, the existence of a valid forum selection clause means that the Defendant consented to personal jurisdiction and venue within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391 governs whether venue is proper; a forum-selection clause alone does not make venue improper.

Thabet Management, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance Company · filed 2021-06-22(b)

Because Defendant’s motion seeks dismissal based on the Policy’s forum-selection clause and does not contend that Oregon is an improper venue under federal venue laws, it is inappropriate under the Atlantic Marine rule.

A forum selection clause does not affect whether a case falls within § 1391(b)'s categories for proper venue.

VASQUEZ v. HUNTER BLOOMINGTON PROPERTIES, LLC · filed 2021-07-19(b)

However, whether the parties entered into a contract containing a forum selection clause has no bearing on whether this case falls into one of the categories of cases listed in § 1391, and Defendant does not argue that this case involves one of those three categories.

A forum-selection clause does not make venue improper under § 1391(b) when the case otherwise falls within one of its venue categories.

Dr. Robert L. Meinders, D.C. v. United HealthCare Services · filed 2021-07-30(b)

Indeed, “a contract containing a forum-selection clause has no bearing on whether a case falls into one of the categories of cases listed in § 1391(b).” ... Because the clause selects a state forum, United should have brought a motion under the forum non conveniens doctrine to enforce it.

Section 1391(b) sets the criteria for proper venue; a forum selection clause does not itself make venue improper.

Hupy & Abraham SC v. Quintessa LLC · filed 2021-11-19(b)

If any one of the provisions outlined in § 1391(b) are met, venue is proper. To be sure, venue may be proper “irrespective” of any forum selection clause.

Section 1391 determines venue by statutory criteria without regard to a forum-selection clause.

Lighting Partners Jax, Inc. v. SPS Commerce, Inc. · filed 2022-02-17(b)

Venue is determined solely by the criteria outlined in the federal venue statute, without regard to the parties’ agreement as to forum.

Section 1391(b)'s venue requirements are not satisfied by a forum-selection clause that lacks consent to venue or waiver of venue objections.

Technology Revelations, Inc v. Peraton, Inc. · filed 2022-09-30(b)

Instead, in accordance with Atlantic Marine, the court finds that a forum-selection clause, absent consent or waiver, does not independently establish venue.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; a forum-selection clause does not make that venue improper.

Contract Services Group, LLC v. E&E Manufacturing of Tennessee, LLC · filed 2023-03-29(b)(2)

There appears to be no dispute that venue is proper in this Court pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of the federal venue statute, which states that venue in a civil action is proper in, among other places, “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Accordingly, pursuant to Atlantic Marine, Rule 12(b)(3)—which applies only to a motions alleging improper venue—does not govern E&E’s motion to enforce the forum-selection clause in the Work Requisition.

A forum selection clause alone does not make venue improper under § 1391 and cannot be enforced through a Rule 12(b)(3) motion.

YOUNG v. MERCADO · filed 2023-07-28

A forum selection clause alone cannot render other venues “wrong” or “improper” under § 1391, so it cannot be enforced through a 12(b)(3) motion.

Section 1391(b) determines whether venue is proper; a forum selection clause alone does not make venue improper.

Acer Landscape Services, LLC v. Lasiter & Lasiter Inc. PC · filed 2023-12-01(b)

In this case, the only basis for dismissal asserted in the defendants’ motion is the forum selection clause in the Agreement. It does not argue that venue is wrong or improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss will be denied.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2) supplied a proper venue for the action despite a forum-selection clause.

Gomeringer v. The Boat House of Cape Coral, LLC · filed 2024-02-28(b)(1), (b)(2)

Under § 1391(b)(1) (where “any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State”)2 and § 1391(b)(2) (where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”), this district is a proper venue. Accordingly, Carolina Skiff’s motion to dismiss for improper venue is denied.

Section 1391(b) can make venue proper based on a defendant’s residence or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action, even when a forum-selection clause names another forum.

DarkPulse, Inc. v. FirstFire Glob. Opportunities Fund, LLC · filed 2024-03-28(b)

Although FirstFire moved to dismiss DarkPulse’s amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), FirstFire does not dispute that – setting aside any issues related to the forum-selection clause – venue would have been proper in New York under section 1391(b). And the allegations in DarkPulse’s amended complaint indeed suggest that venue would have been proper in New York for the purposes of the federal venue statute.

Section 1391 governs general federal venue, and a forum-selection clause does not make venue improper under its rules.

Applied Ballistics Inc. v. Sheltered Wings, Inc · filed 2024-05-06

Rule 12(b)(3) is a mechanism for challenging venue in accordance with federal venue laws, generally 28 U.S.C. § 1391,2 and not an appropriate mechanism for enforcing a contractual provision governing where a suit may be brought, or a "forum-selection clause." ... The Supreme Court in 2013 made clear that a Rule 12(b)(3) motion is decided under federal venue laws—none of which Vortex even cites to or makes an argument under—and is an inappropriate mechanism for enforcing a forum-selection clause.

Section 1391’s venue rules allow parties to choose an otherwise improper venue through an enforceable forum selection clause.

Fifth App, LLC v. Alpha Modus Ventures, LLC · filed 2024-08-29(b)

A venue that is otherwise invalid under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 may be chosen by parties in an enforceable forum selection clause.

Section 1391(b) governs whether venue is improper under Rule 12(b)(3); a forum-selection clause alone does not make venue improper.

MPS Monitor S.R.L. v. Oberon Americas, Inc. · filed 2025-03-13(b)

MPS does not allege venue to be improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Thus, its invocation of Rule 12(b)(3) is misguided.

Section 1391(b)'s venue requirements may be waived by consent to a forum selection clause.

United Natural Foods, Inc. v. Geiger's Long Valley Market LLC · filed 2025-04-08(b)

And because Maciel’s prior consent to venue in the District of Minnesota overrides any objection to venue being improper under § 1391(b), venue is proper here.

Section 1391(b)'s venue requirements can be waived through a mandatory forum-selection clause without a separate express waiver.

LMMC, LLC v. Solberg · filed 2025-05-12(b)

The Court finds the reasoning in Huawei and Maciel persuasive and concludes venue is appropriate in this district. ... And given that clear language, no additional waiver is needed. ... By consenting to the forum-selection clause in the agreement, Solberg affirmatively waived any objection to venue in this Court.

Section 1391(b) governs where venue is proper, and a forum selection clause does not make venue improper.

DiFranco v. Jeff Couch's RV Nation · filed 2025-05-20(b)

As an initial matter, a forum selection clause does not render venue improper as a matter of law.

Section 1391(b) sets the categories of proper venue; a forum-selection clause does not change whether a case falls within them.

Nelson v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois · filed 2025-06-09(b)

Because the existence of a valid forum-selection clause does not, by itself, render venue “improper,” it “has no bearing on whether a case falls into one of the categories of cases listed in § 1391(b).”

Section 1391(b) governs whether venue is proper; a forum selection clause alone does not establish that venue is improper under the statute.

Gray Pharm Inc v. Cardinal Health 110 L L C · filed 2025-08-05(b)

Instead, a party must show that venue is improper pursuant to § 1391(b). Cardinal Health has made no such showing, and thus, the proposed Second Amended Complaint is not futile on this basis.

Section 1391(b) governs whether venue is proper; a forum-selection clause alone does not make venue improper under Rule 12(b)(3).

TUCKER v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION · filed 2025-08-14(b)

Unless venue is improper under § 1391, the suit cannot be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(3). ... Cyberlux has not asserted that venue is improper under § 1391(b). ... Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3) is therefore unavailable.

A forum selection clause does not affect whether venue is proper under § 1391(b).

Mansour v. Stanley · filed 2025-08-15(b)

The presence of a forum selection clause in the parties’ agreement giving rise to the transaction is irrelevant for purposes of determining whether venue is proper under § 1391(b).

Section 1391 determines whether the original federal district is a proper venue without regard to a forum-selection clause.

Walburg v. Biotronik, Inc. · filed 2025-10-07

Based on these facts, the District of Minnesota is a proper venue for this action, notwithstanding the forum-selection clause.

Section 1391 governs whether venue is improper; a forum-selection clause pointing to state court is enforced through forum non conveniens.

Soles · filed 2025-11-25

The issue here is not one of an “improper venue” under Section 1391, [see Doc. 20 at 1]; instead, it is an issue of the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens to this case based on the forum selection clause, see id. at 55-59.

Section 1391 determines whether venue is proper regardless of a contractual forum selection clause.

Hooge · filed 2026-03-03

Whether venue is wrong or improper depends on whether the case satisfies federal venue laws, like 28 U.S.C. § 1391, irrespective of any forum selection clause.

A forum selection clause does not make venue improper under § 1391.

Adetu · filed 2026-03-31

A forum selection clause does not render venue “improper” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

A forum-selection clause does not determine whether venue is proper under § 1391(b); the statutory grounds for venue do.

Stephens · filed 2026-05-22(b)

The Court will address the impact of the forum-selection clause below, but absent that clause, Stephens arguably could have filed suit in this District because she earned her wages here and communicated with defendants here for the events that gave rise to her claims. ... Consequently, the only part of defendants’ motion that is properly before the Court is whether transfer should occur under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside or a substantial part of the property at issue is located; a forum-selection clause does not make that venue improper.

Swarek · filed 2026-06-08(b)

Nor can the forum-selection clause render venue in this district improper. ... Venue was “proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as both Defendants reside in this judicial district” and because “a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in this judicial district.”

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the property at issue is situated; a business’s headquarters in the district can support that finding.

Green Aire for Air Conditioning WLL v. Salem · filed 2020-08-14(b)(2)

Plaintiff has sufficiently shown that venue is proper in the District of Arizona under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), as Defendant moved the headquarters of AIR2O to the District of Arizona, and thus it is likely that “a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated” there.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the property at issue is situated, even if some property lies outside the district.

United States v. Marin · filed 2020-01-23(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue in a suit against the federal government where a substantial part of the property at issue is situated.

Gulf Restoration Network v. Jewell · filed 2015-04-09(e)(1)(B)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue in a suit against the federal government is proper in any district in which “a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated....” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B). Here, venue is proper in the Southern District of Alabama because the Project is located there.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the property at issue is situated.

Kukui Gardens Corp. v. Holco Capital Group, Inc. · filed 2008-12-19(b)(2)

Venue is thus proper pursuant to § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the property that is the subject of this action is situated in Hawaii.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue based on the location of property at issue even if the property arrived in the district after the suit was filed.

Power Paragon, Inc. v. Precision Technology USA, Inc. · filed 2008-10-06(a)(2)

Although the Product was not delivered to the Eastern District until after the claim was filed, the applicable statute does not condition venue on when the property came to be situated in the judicial district. Therefore, the current location of the Product is substantial, not tangential, to the breach of contract claim and supports venue in the Eastern District.

Section 1391(e)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the property at issue is situated.

Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp · filed 2007-12-04(e)(2)

As a threshold matter, this Court first finds that plaintiffs could have originally filed suit in the Middle District of Florida because “a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated” there. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2).

Section 1391(e)(2) does not establish venue based on where a patent is situated when the action concerns a federal official’s alleged failure to perform legal duties rather than the patent itself.

Standard Havens, Inc. v. Manbeck · filed 1991-05-02(e)(2)

Standard Havens’ argument, based on section 1391(e)(2), that “a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated” in the Western District of Missouri is also flawed because the Hawkins patent — the property alleged to be “situated” in this district, is not “the subject of the action.” Rather, the Commissioner’s failure to perform his legal duties is the subject of this action. Venue in this case is not in this district.

Section 1391(e) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred or the property at issue is situated.

Miller v. United States · filed 1992-05-06(e)

Because a substantial portion of the operative facts giving rise to the plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Middle District of Tennessee, and because all of the property that is the subject of this action is situated in the Middle District of Tennessee, venue to hear this cause has been properly laid in this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue based on real property that is only tangentially involved in a dispute.

Monarch Normandy Square Partners v. Normandy Square Associates Ltd. Partnership · filed 1993-03-16(b)(2)

The court rejects the notion that (2) applies whenever real property is tangentially involved in a dispute. The court finds that (2) does not support venue.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where the real property that is the subject of the action is situated.

Lavean v. Cowels · filed 1993-10-28(a)(2)

Venue over the original complaint was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), in that the real property that is the subject of the action is situated in this judicial district.

Section 1391(e)(2) makes venue proper in a district where a substantial part of the property at issue is situated.

Trout Unlimited v. United States Department of Agriculture · filed 1996-10-23(e)(2)

In a suit based on federal question, as is this one, venue is proper in the “judicial district in which ... a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2). ... In the case at bar, venue is proper in Colorado under this provision since the plaintiffs’ claims arise out of a nucleus of facts that involve property that is entirely located within the state of Colorado.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where the real property at issue is situated.

United States v. Reid · filed 2000-08-17(b)(2)

Venue has been properly laid in the Southern District of Georgia because Richmond County, Georgia is the situs of the real property at issue. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(e)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property at issue is situated.

Sierra Club v. Flowers · filed 2003-08-04(e)(2)

Venue is proper in any judicial district in which “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2). ... Thus, there is no question that venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida.

For a claim alleging breach of a loan agreement, § 1391(a)(2) treats the loan, rather than the property securing it, as the property at issue for venue.

MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. Guire · filed 2003-10-07(a)(2)

Finally, contrary to MTGLQ’s suggestion, the “property that is the subject of the action” is the loan itself, not the property securing it, and the promissory notes embodying the loan are not to be found in Maryland. Thus, neither the events nor the property at issue in this action provide a basis for venue under § 1391(a)(2).

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the property at issue is located, including when the dispute concerns a contract over that property.

United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Applied Financial, Inc. · filed 2005-10-28(a)(2)

The court also finds venue is proper in the Northern District of Iowa pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2). A substantial part of the property that is the subject of this action is located in Iowa. Although Applied Financial attempts to characterize this lawsuit as a dispute over a contract, not property, the. court finds this a contract dispute over property and falls within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2).

Section 1391(e) permits venue in the district where the real property at issue in an action against federal officials is located.

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Allred · filed 2012-02-29(e)

Because this action concerns real property situated in Utah, all parties conclude that this suit could have been brought in the District of Utah. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e); Carbon County Mot. at 5-6; USITLA Mot. at 13; Pls.’ Opp’n at 12 n.6. The court agrees.

Section 1391(f)(1) permits venue based on property in the district when the action concerns a specific, identifiable piece of that property.

Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo · filed 2012-04-27(f)(1)

However, the statute is clear that the property establishing venue must be “the subject of the action.” To give § 1391(f)(1) Plaintiff’s interpretation would be to write this crucial modifying phrase out of the statute. A more reasonable interpretation would be that the property prong of § 1391(f)(1) governs venue in in rem actions concerning a specific and identifiable piece of property.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where the property at issue is located and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

FOCHT v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC · filed 2020-08-25(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district because the real property that is the subject of the action is located within this district and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the property at issue is located.

Talbot's Pharmaceuticals Family Products L L C v. Skanda Group Industries L LC · filed 2021-04-28(b)(2)

In any event, venue also is proper in this judicial district as to all claims and parties because a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated here – i.e., the 750,000 incorrect and untimely delivered masks.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the property at issue is located.

Johns v. Cathey · filed 2022-08-01(b)(2)

The property is located in Simpson County, Kentucky, which is within the Western District of Kentucky. (Compl. ¶ 1). Thus, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the property at issue is located.

Kerames v. Wells Fargo · filed 2022-10-21(b)(2)

Plaintiff also alleges that the property that is the subject of this action is located in Westport, Connecticut (see ECF 1, at 3), which is within the District of Connecticut, see 28 U.S.C. § 86. Thus, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut is also a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(f)(1) requires property used to establish venue to be the property underlying the claim; unrelated assets do not suffice.

Palladian Partners, L.P. v. Province of Buenos Aires · filed 2022-11-03(f)(1)

The alleged asset must be the asset that forms the basis of the Plaintiff's claim.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a contract claim occurred, including the place of alleged breach.

Interconnect Media Network Systems L L C v. Developers & Managers Group L L C · filed 2023-07-12(b)(2)

The Court agrees. Any alleged breach of the agreement between SimulTV and DMG would likely have occurred in DMG’s office in Baton Rouge. Further, the FCC licenses are located in Baton Rouge. Therefore, a substantial part of the events giving rise to SimulTV’s claim occurred in Baton Rouge, which makes the Middle District of Louisiana another proper venue for this action.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the property at issue is situated.

Keita v. American Security Insurance Company · filed 2023-08-30(b)(2)

The property that is the subject of the action is situated in Staten Island, which is in Richmond County, in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). The Eastern District of New York therefore appears to be a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the property at issue is situated.

Northrim Bank v. Pearl Bay Seafoods LLC · filed 2024-02-16(b)(2)

Here, the property that is the subject of this action, the vessel Glacier Bay, is located in Seattle, Washington. Per § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper here.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in the district where the property that is the subject of the action is located.

Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC v. Land · filed 2024-02-21(b)(2)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the property that is the subject of this action is located in Lafourche Parish, which is in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the property at issue is situated, a determination that does not resolve ownership.

Marble v. NS JPF Lender LLC · filed 2024-03-13(b)(2)

But, based on the pleadings and evidence before it, the Court determines that, according to the political boundary between Oklahoma and Texas, a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated in Texas—not Oklahoma.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the property at issue is situated.

NS JPF Lender, LLC v. Marble · filed 2024-03-13(b)(2)

But, based on the pleadings and evidence before it, the Court determines that, according to the political boundary between Oklahoma and Texas, a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated in Texas—not Oklahoma.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property at issue is located.

Carey v. Key Bank N.A. · filed 2024-07-26(b)(2)

Venue would lie in the Western District of New York because the New York Property, the foreclosure action, and many of the events described in the complaint occurred there.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the property at issue in the action is situated.

COLBERT v. OGILVIE · filed 2025-03-04(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” ... Plaintiff did not allege a property dispute over funds located in this District in her Amended Complaint.

Section 1391(b) applies only to civil cases and does not authorize transfer of a criminal forfeiture proceeding.

United States v. Martenson · filed 1991-05-09(b)

Finally, Mr. Martenson requests that the court transfer this case to the federal district court in Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). However, section 1391(b) only applies to civil cases. Moreover, 18 U.S.C. § 1963(j) provides this court with jurisdiction to enter orders pertaining to forfeitures, regardless of the location of the property subject to forfeiture. Therefore, Mr. Martenson’s request for a transfer is denied.

Section 1391 does not govern venue in Title VII cases; Title VII’s specific venue provision does.

Hildebrand v. United States Department of Defense · filed 2024-12-09

In Title VII cases, venue is determined by the statute’s specific venue provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), rather than the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391(a)(3) permits venue where the defendant has designated an agent to receive service of process.

Hartnett v. Schering Corp. · filed 1992-10-27(a)(3)

Although venue is proper in this Court because Schering has designated an agent for receipt of service of process in Maryland, this case has no other connection with the state of Maryland.

Section 1391(e) governs venue for federal employees’ ADEA suits without waiving sovereign immunity, so it need not be strictly construed.

Taylor v. Espy · filed 1993-03-22(e)

Thus, applying the general catch-all venue provision does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, and therefore need not be strictly construed.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make receipt of a cease-and-desist letter alone sufficient to establish venue in a declaratory judgment action for copyright non-infringement or invalidity.

Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. · filed 1993-06-15(b)(2)

In the context of this case, the approach finding that receipt of a cease-and-desist letter is sufficient to establish venue under Section 1391(b)(2) is rejected.

Section 1391 does not govern venue for admiralty claims.

Amazon Produce Network, LLC v. Nyk Line · filed 2015-09-21

The venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, does not apply to admiralty claims.

Section 1391(b)'s venue restrictions do not govern admiralty claims brought under Rule 9(h).

Barnett v. Kirby Inland Marine, Inc. · filed 2002-04-24(b)

Consequently, with respect to this case,' the propriety of venue is not determined by the venue restrictions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)'s venue provisions do not apply to actions based solely on admiralty jurisdiction.

Sunbelt Corporation v. Noble, Denton & Associates, Inc. · filed 1993-09-14(b)

As such, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 82, the statutory venue provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391(b) are inapplicable.

Section 1391(b)’s general venue rules do not apply to an action based solely on admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

Sunbelt Corp. v. Noble, Denton & Associates, Inc. · filed 1993-09-14(b)

The district court’s jurisdiction in this action, as all parties agree, is based solely on maritime jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333. As such, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 82, the statutory venue provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) are inapplicable.

Section 1391 does not govern venue in admiralty cases.

American Home Assurance Co. v. Glovegold, Ltd. · filed 1994-03-15

Contrary to Plaintiff’s belief, venue in admiralty cases is not governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391’s venue provisions do not apply to actions based on admiralty jurisdiction.

Asia North America Eastbound Rate Agreement v. Pacific Champion Service Corp. · filed 1994-09-23

Because the Court’s jurisdiction in this action is based on admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333, the statutory venue provisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 are inapplicable.

Section 1391(b)’s substantial-events venue rule does not govern an admiralty claim identified under Rule 9(h); venue is proper where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction and can be served.

I & M RAIL LINK v. Northstar Navigation · filed 1998-09-21(b)

Most relevant here is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 82, which provides that “[a]n admiralty or maritime claim within the meaning of Rule 9(h) shall not be treated as a civil action for purposes of Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391-93.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 82. ... Because the court has determined that Northstar is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, venue is proper here.

Section 1391(b)'s venue restrictions do not apply to admiralty claims within Rule 9(h).

Denson v. United States · filed 2000-06-05(b)

Consequently, with respect to this case, the Court is not bound by the venue restrictions set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391’s general venue rules do not apply to admiralty cases.

Richoux v. R & G SHRIMP CO. · filed 2000-12-22

The venue rules that govern ordinary civil actions, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, do not apply to cases in admiralty.

Section 1391’s venue requirements do not apply to admiralty actions brought under Rule 9(h).

Government of Egypt Procurement Office v. M/V Robert E. Lee · filed 2002-05-21

Admiralty actions brought under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(h) are exempt from the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which normally governs the propriety of venue in civil actions.

Section 1391’s general venue rules do not govern an action brought under admiralty jurisdiction, even when its Jones Act claims could have been brought at law.

Holmes v. Energy Catering Services, LLC · filed 2003-06-27

Plaintiff asserts that 28 U.S.C. § 1391 does not govern venue in this case, which was brought on the admiralty side of the Court’s docket, but wh'ich raises Jones Act claims that could have been brought on the law side. ... The Court agrees that the admiralty venue rule applies, though this conclusion is not as clear as it might appear.

Section 1391 does not govern venue for admiralty or maritime claims brought under Rule 9(h); venue is proper where the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

EMPTY BARGE LINES II v. Dredge Leonard Fisher · filed 2006-07-03

Consequently, with respect to the instant action, venue merges with personal jurisdiction in accordance with general admiralty practice, and venue is proper in any court that has personal jurisdiction over Defendant KFMS.

Section 1391(b) does not govern venue in admiralty and maritime actions; traditional admiralty venue rules apply.

Buckeye Pennsauken Terminal LLC v. Dominique Trading Corp. · filed 2015-12-21(b)

Because this action is based on admiralty and maritime jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1933, the statutory venue provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) are inapplicable, and the traditional admiralty rules concerning venue apply instead.

Section 1391’s general venue requirements do not apply to admiralty actions.

Liberty Highrise Pvt. Ltd v. Praxis Energy Agents DMCC · filed 2021-03-31

Praxis Singapore additionally states—in one paragraph of argument—that venue is improper in this District because none of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the federal venue statute, are met. Mot. at 2. Because this action sounds in admiralty, however, that chapter does not apply.

Section 1391(b)'s general venue rules do not govern admiralty actions.

Star & Crescent Boat Company, Inc. v. Sunsplash Marina LLC · filed 2021-07-15(b)

Although cases falling under the Court’s admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1333 and 1337 “are deemed to be civil actions governed by the Federal Rules of Civi Procedure,” ... they are not considered “civil actions” for purposes of venue under Section 1391, see, e.g., 12 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 3142 (3d ed.) (April 2021 Update).

Section 1391(a)’s general venue rules do not apply to admiralty attachment proceedings because venue there is otherwise provided by law.

MARMAC, LLC v. InterMoor, Inc. · filed 2021-10-14(a)

The general venue provisions of § 1391 are inapplicable in this case as venue in admiralty attachment proceedings is “otherwise provided by law.”

Section 1391’s federal venue requirements do not apply to admiralty actions.

Liberty Highrise Pvt. Ltd v. Praxis Energy Agents DMCC · filed 2022-09-30

As Praxis Singapore argued in its motion to dismiss the initial Complaint, Praxis USA and Kyriazis additionally argue that venue is improper because none of the requirements of the federal venue statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391, are met. Mot. at 7. But, because this action sounds in admiralty, that section does not apply. See 28 U.S.C. § 1390(b).

Section 1391 determines venue by district, so venue proper in one division is also proper in another division of the same district.

Erickson v. Exxon Mobil Corporation · filed 2025-04-08

But the parties agree, and the court concurs, that this suit could have been properly filed in Houston. ... (“The venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, is based on districts, not divisions. If venue is proper in Galveston, it is also proper in Houston.”). Accordingly, the court will consider the private and public concerns in turn.