28 U.S.C. § 1391

Section 1391(b) determines venue by judicial district, not by state.

Jaiyeola v. Aguilera · filed 2025-01-13(b)

That argument fails, because it is contrary to the plain text of § 1391(b), which requires courts to analyze the venue of civil actions in relation to “judicial district[s]” not in relation to states.

Section 1391(b) identifies proper venue by judicial district; transfer between divisions within a district is governed by § 1404.

Bevil v. Smit Americas, Inc. · filed 1995-04-24(b)

The Court does not dispute that venue is proper in any of the three locations listed above. However, Defendant appears to have confused the venue statute’s district oriented language with the concept of divisions within a district. The decision to transfer a case to another division is well within the discretion of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

Section 1391(b) governs venue by judicial district, so a defendant’s residence in the district makes venue proper regardless of the division.

LOWERY, PH. D. v. University of Houston-Clear Lake · filed 1999-06-03(b)

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) states that “[a] civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may ... be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides....” It is undisputed that both Plaintiff and Defendant reside within the Southern District of Texas. Venue is therefore proper in this Court, and Defendant’s Motion to Transfer is accordingly DENIED.

Section 1391(a) has no requirement to file in a particular division within a judicial district.

Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp. · filed 2000-03-27(a)

First, there is no divisional requirement ... under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(a).

Section 1391(a) sets venue by judicial district rather than by division within a district.

Harrington v. Wilber · filed 2005-07-28(a)

As noted by other courts, the venue statute does not speak in terms of divisions, but rather requires that venue be laid in the proper district.

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

Borghi v. Purple Group, Inc. · filed 2009-05-15(b)

Section 1391 speaks in terms of districts, not divisions. ... Thus, if venue is proper in one division of a district, then venue is proper in another division within that same district.

Section 1391(e) governs venue by judicial district for actions against federal agencies but does not select a division within a district.

CPR v. Tidwell · filed 2009-08-11(e)

While § 1391 is silent as to the selection of divisions within a district, the law is intended to “provide for nationwide venue for the convenience of individual plaintiffs in actions which are ... against the [federal] government.” Stafford v. Briggs, 444 U.S. 527, 542, 100 S.Ct. 774, 63 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980).

Section 1391(b)(2) determines proper venue by judicial district, not by division within a district.

Luke v. Transwood Logistics Inc. · filed 2014-04-28(b)(2)

The statute only speaks to judicial “districts” and not to “divisions.”

Section 1391(b) addresses venue by judicial district, not by division within a district.

Jones v. Mar-Mal, Inc. · filed 2021-04-19(b)

Notably, both § 1391(b) and § 2000e-5(f)(3) refer to judicial districts; neither reference divisional districts.

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

Emrit · filed 2026-04-15(b)(2)

None of the alleged events took place in Alaska, and Plaintiff’s jurisdictional statements are internally inconsistent.11 For these reasons, the Court finds that this case must also be dismissed.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim, or substantial property at issue, to be in the district.

NitroCream LLC v. Chill-N Nitrogen Ice Cream Franchising LLC · filed 2025-06-06(b)(2)

Similarly, NitroCream has not demonstrated a proper basis for venue under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Qiu v. Local 74, United Service Workers Union · filed 2025-06-04(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at in Queens County, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Pete's Big TVs v. AG Light and Sound Inc. · filed 2025-05-27(b)(2)

The acts and events at issue in this complaint involve and relate to conduct and controversies that occurred in Clark County, Nevada. ... Therefore, venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Cataldo v. Mead · filed 2025-05-22(b)(2)

Venue also is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(2) because the alleged events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Erie and Warren Counties, which both fall within the Western District of Pennsylvania.

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

Cataldo v. Warren County Court of Common Pleas · filed 2025-05-23(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a judicial district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; reassignment between divisions of that district does not make venue improper.

Peterson v. Hilligoss · filed 2025-01-14(b)(2)

In sum, because the reassignment of this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan’s Northern Division did not place this case in an improper district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and Plaintiff has not established that this division is an inconvenient forum under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, Plaintiff’s Motion for a Change of Venue, ECF No. 45, will be denied without prejudice.

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

Spearman v. TSA, Kahului International Airport · filed 2025-01-14(b)(2)

In this case, the claims arose in Kahului, Hawaii, which is in the District of Hawaii. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

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

(PC) Spearman v. TSA, Kahulni International Airport · filed 2025-01-14(b)(2)

In this case, the claims arose in Kahului, Hawaii, which is in the District of Hawaii. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

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

Burnett v. Coppolai · filed 2025-01-21(b)(2)

Venue thus is proper, under Section 1391(b)(2), in the Northern District of New York, where the claims arose.

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

Young v. Doe · filed 2025-01-07(b)(2)

Venue of Plaintiff’s claims thus is proper in the Eastern District of New York, under Section 1391(b)(2), based on where the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

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

Profit v. Rasmussen · filed 2024-05-30(b)

Therefore, venue for this suit is not proper in the Eastern District of Michigan because Profit has failed toallege that any ofthe acts, events, or omissions that form the basis of his lawsuit took place in this district.

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

Wesolek v. Erie County Holding Center · filed 2024-05-16(b)(2)

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

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

Jaime v. Wende Correctional Facility · filed 2024-05-20(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges that the events that are the bases for his claims in this action occurred at Wende (see ECF 1, at 4), which is located within the Western District of New York, however, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Desinor v. Previl · filed 2024-05-21(b)(2)

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

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

Chavez v. Communications/Switchboard Does · filed 2024-05-22(b)(2)

Because the alleged events occurred in Los Angeles, California, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391 permits venue where the allegations establish a sufficient connection to the district, even if no party resides there.

Fraser v. Team Health Holdings, Inc. · filed 2022-03-31(b), (c)

Plaintiffs allege venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1391(b) and (c) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1965(a). None of the Plaintiffs and none of the Defendants reside in this District. Plaintiffs’ choice of venue rests on their allegations that one of the members of the alleged RICO enterprise, non-party TeamHealth West is located in Pleasanton, California. Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Sia Fraser’s bills directed that payments be sent to TeamHealth West’s address and that TeamHealth West owns the provider group that provided Ms. Fraser’s medical care. (FAC ¶¶ 23, 48.) While those allegations would be sufficient show venue is proper in this District, they do not necessarily demonstrate this District is the most convenient forum.

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

Bray - RESTRICTED - ACCEPT NO FILINGS v. Miami Correctional Facility · filed 2021-09-27(b)(2)

The claims remaining in this case are alleged to have occurred at the Reception and Diagnostic Center, which is located in the geographic boundaries of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. It is unclear whether venue could be proper here in the Northern District, but it is clear it is proper in the Southern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (“A civil action may be brought in … a judicial district in which a substantial part of the claim occurred . . ..”).

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

Vinco Ventures, Inc. v. Milam Knecht and Warner, LLP · filed 2021-09-27(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate in a district in which a substantial portion of the events giving rise to a claim took place. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). After a review of the Amended Complaint, this Court finds that venue is appropriate in this district.

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

Vinco Ventures, Inc. v. Milam Knecht and Warner, LLP · filed 2021-09-28(b)(2)

Since no substantial events took place in this District with respect to Counts I, II, and III, this Court finds that venue is inappropriate in this district as to those Counts.

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

Team Biondi, LLC v. Navistar, Inc. · filed 2021-09-28(b)(2)

Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where the alleged acts or omissions giving rise to the complaint occurred.

Jones v. Stubbs · filed 2021-09-23(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district as the alleged acts and omissions giving rise to the complaint occurred at SCI-Camp Hill in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which is in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Hill v. Batchley · filed 2021-09-24(b)

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

Section 1391 permits venue in the district where the acts or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.

Friend v. Shoemaker · filed 2021-09-24(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district because the alleged acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred at Lycoming County Prison in located in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, which is in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

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

Jean v. Johns · filed 2021-09-28(b)(2)

The incidents occurred in the Southern District of Georgia; therefore, venue was proper there under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

PROFESSIONAL, INC. v. FIRST CHOICE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2021-09-20(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where substantial events giving rise to a claim occurred, even if more such events occurred in another district.

THE SNACK JOINT LLC v. OCM GROUP USA, NJ, INC. · filed 2021-09-08(b)(2)

Even if the sales of the Accused Products in California were greater than those in New Jersey, it does not automatically make this District an improper venue.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make venue proper in a district where none of the complained-of actions occurred.

(PS) Rouse v. Beltran · filed 2021-09-08(b)(2)

As explained in the order to show cause, the complaint and its attachments indicated that both of the complained-of actions by Ms. Beltran (her emails regarding plaintiff’s contact information, and her subsequent refusal of plaintiff’s request) allegedly took place at her work site in Napa, California, which is located in the Northern District of California, not the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 3 at 3.) Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

HE v. CMBK Resort Holdings, LLC · filed 2021-09-08(b)(2)

Second, under § 1391(b)(2), the Court finds that a “substantial part of the events” giving rise to Plaintiffs’ premises liability claim occurred not in the District of New Jersey, but in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

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

(PC) Aguilar v. George Hill Claims Co. · filed 2021-09-09(b)(2)

In this case, the claim arose in Ontario, San Bernardino County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in Alaska for claims arising entirely in Illinois against employees working there.

Fredericks v. BOP · filed 2021-08-19(b)

This Court has no personal jurisdiction over BOP employees working at the United States Penitentiary in Thomson, Illinois, and because all of Mr. Fredericks’ claims occurred in Thomson, Illinois, venue is inappropriate in this Court.

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

Salahuddin v. SRC · filed 2021-08-19(b)(2)

Plaintiff also alleges that a substantial part of the alleged events took place in Brooklyn. Thus, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is 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 events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.

Women's Elevated Sober Living LLC v. City of Plano, Texas · filed 2021-08-27(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this action because “a substantial part of the events or omissions” giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Eastern District of Texas.

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

Woodward v. Dignity Health Rehabilitation Hospital · filed 2021-08-30(b)

The events giving rise to Woodward’s claim against Dignity Health arose in Nevada and, under § 1391(b), venue is proper in the District of Nevada.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim to occur in the district; a wire transfer to a bank account there alone is insufficient.

LGN International, LLC v. Hylan Asset Management, LLC · filed 2021-08-09(b)(2)

Even if the wire transfer allegation is true, it is not enough to support a finding that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred within the Southern District of New York.

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

Lay v. Crow · filed 2021-07-15(b)(2)

28 U.S.C. § 1391. Here, Plaintiff resides at OSP in McAlester, Oklahoma, a substantial part of the events occurred at OSP, and at least six of the ten defendants are employed at OSP. ... Under such circumstances, venue is not proper in this Court.

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

Hirsch v. Mastro · filed 2021-07-16(b)(2)

Second, as the underlying events occurred in Kings County, and the four Justices that Plaintiff sues are located in that county, venue is proper in the Eastern District under § 1391(b)(2).

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

Bryan v. Fleetbank N.A. · filed 2021-07-16(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claim arose in this district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b). ... Accordingly, venue lies in the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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

Fulton v. Newkirk · filed 2021-07-19(b)

As to the first part of the inquiry, this action could have been brought in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where the accident occurred. See 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) (“A civil action may be brought in… a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”).

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

Williams v. King · filed 2021-07-21(b)

It is well settled that a civil action filed by an inmate under authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “may be brought . . . in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... It is therefore clear from the face of the Complaint that the proper venue for this cause of action is the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

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

Ham v. Allison · filed 2021-07-23(b)

Venue is proper because most of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims are alleged to have occurred at SQSP, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Rubio v. Allison · filed 2021-07-26(b)

Venue is proper because most of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims are alleged to have occurred at SQSP, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

McDonald v. McPhun · filed 2021-07-15(b)(2)

The Report also found that the Court has specific personal jurisdiction over defendants because they directed tortious conduct toward plaintiffs in Virginia, and that venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial number of events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Virginia. ... Having fully reviewed the record—including the parties’ memoranda, the magistrate Judge’s 38-page Report, and the defendants’ objections to the Report—the defendants’ objections to the Report are overruled and the Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the Report as its own.

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

Gaylor v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-17(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Mcleod v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-17(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Girardin v. CR Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-17(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including the district where the plaintiff’s implantation surgery took place.

Cherasard v. CR Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-17(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Flowers v. CR Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-17(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Hathaway v. CR Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-17(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where the plaintiff’s implant surgery took place.

Ringle v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-17(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.”

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including the plaintiffs’ implant surgeries.

Kennebrew v. CR Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-17(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Waller v. C R Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-17(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Boch v. CR Bard Inc · filed 2020-08-17(b)(2)

The identified cases might have been brought in those jurisdictions because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make a district a proper venue for a claim when none of the events or omissions giving rise to that claim occurred there.

JST Corporation v. Gold · filed 2020-08-16(b)(2)

Regardless, none of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims in the Eastern District of New York or the District of Connecticut appear to have involved Wendy or PBC. Thus even if JET Components had developed its argument concerning venue, there is no basis on which the Court could find that the Eastern District of New York and the District of Connecticut are proper venues. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Kuk v. State Farm · filed 2020-08-06(b)(2)

Venue in this Court is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Bloomington, Illinois.

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

Herrera v. Shea · filed 2020-08-06(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Brooklyn, and most defendants appear to reside in either Brooklyn or Uniondale. Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

(PC) Legardy v. Atchley · filed 2020-08-11(b)(2)

Plaintiff has alleged that the events giving rise to the claim occurred while he was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison. ... Therefore, plaintiffs claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

Optimas OE Solutions LLC v. Grimes · filed 2020-07-30(b)(2)

As shown in the court’s discussion of personal jurisdiction, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [Optimas’s] claim[s] occurred” in this District, and “a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action”—Optimas’s confidential and trade secret information—“is situated” here. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Thus, venue is proper in this District.

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

(PC) Brooks v. Santoro · filed 2020-07-30(b)(2)

However, venue for Plaintiff’s claims arising out of events at CRC is not proper in this district and those claims may not be pursued in this action.

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

Rouse v. Nessel · filed 2020-08-03(b)

Here, the District of South Carolina is the wrong district for venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that all Defendants are residents of Michigan and the events that gave rise to this action occurred in the Eastern District of Michigan.

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

Ei Corporation, Inc. v. Gallant Capital Partners, LLC · filed 2020-07-28(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate in the Southern District of California because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Ei’s claims occurred there. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Hernandez v. Taylor · filed 2020-07-23(b)(2)

Venue in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson Division, is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and LRCiv 77.1(c), as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Pima County.

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

Solorio v. Ducart · filed 2020-07-24(b)(2)

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

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

Chiprez v. Adame · filed 2020-07-27(b)

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

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

Cleveland v. Reynoso · filed 2020-07-27(b)

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

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue in a suit against a federal officer or agency where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

State of New Jersey v. Wheeler · filed 2020-07-28(e)(1)(B)

Indeed, venue is proper under the general venue statute because this is a suit against “an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof” and “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Southern District of New York as attested to by, among other things, the declarations detailing the impacts of ozone pollution on the New York Metropolitan Area, which includes the Southern District of New York.

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

Chisolm-Mitchell v. Advantage Care Physician · filed 2020-07-22(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in the Queens County, where Plaintiffs reside and Defendants work. Queens County is located in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC · filed 2020-07-24(b)

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

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

(PC) Overton v. O'Malley · filed 2020-07-29(b)(2)

In this case, the claim arose in Alameda County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

Holmes v. PA Dept. of Corrections · filed 2020-07-17(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district because the alleged acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred at SCI-Coal Township, Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, which is in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred; in a trademark infringement suit, sales to consumers in the district can satisfy that requirement.

BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Coast Agriculture Incorporated · filed 2020-07-10(b)(2)

The Court finds that BBK has carried its burden in showing that venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) bases venue in a class action on events involving the named plaintiff.

Samson v. UnitedHealthCare Services Inc · filed 2020-07-14(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue is not proper in the Eastern District of California under subsection (b)(2) because nothing in Mr. Samson’s complaint suggests that any events that gave rise to his TCPA claim occurred in the Eastern District of California.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; communications from a district are insufficient when the alleged wrongful acts occurred elsewhere.

WILSON v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. · filed 2020-06-15(b)(2)

As a result, because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims did not occur in New Jersey, it is not a proper district under § 1391(b)(2).

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

Singleton v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-06-18(b)(2)

Because “the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” occurred in the Western District of Wisconsin, venue is proper in the transferee court. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Saunders v. San Juan Construction Company · filed 2020-06-08(b)

Venue is also proper in the District of Colorado because many of the employment decisions Plaintiff complains about occurred at San Juan’s headquarters in Colorado or, alternatively, San Juan has its principal office in Colorado and all Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction there.

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

Pilton v. Washington · filed 2020-06-08(b)

Accordingly, the proper venue for plaintiff’s civil rights action is the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

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

Ferrantino v. U.S.D.C. Bridgeport · filed 2020-06-15(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the District of Connecticut, § 1391(b)(2), and this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, see 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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

Yudzon v. Sage Title Group, LLC · filed 2020-05-22(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate in the District of Columbia because the alleged injury occurred during a sale of real property located in the District.

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

Salkauskaite v. Sephora USA, Inc. · filed 2020-05-30(b)(2)

But venue is proper in this District because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Chicago. Id. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make venue proper in a district where none of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

A.T. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts Inc · filed 2020-06-04(b)(2)

There is no allegation that A.T. was trafficked anywhere in the Western District of Washington or that acts related to her trafficking occurred there; instead, everything happened in Kennewick and Yakima.

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

Humphries v. Newsome · filed 2020-06-05(b)(2)

Because events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims are alleged to have occurred in the County of San Diego, and several Defendants are alleged to have been employed at RJD and to reside here, venue is proper in the Southern District of California.

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

(PC) Clody v. People of the State of California · filed 2020-01-17(b)(2)

In this case, the claims arose in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, which are in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiffs claims should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where the negligence underlying the claims occurred.

Gibson v. The United States · filed 2020-01-16(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the District Court for the District of Montana, Great Falls Division, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and Local Rule 3.2(b) as the negligence upon which the subject claims are based occurred in Fergus County, Montana.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; a dispute over the claim’s merits does not defeat venue.

Fercho v. United States · filed 2020-01-09(b)(2)

Nelson also moved to dismiss the Ferchos’ claims against her for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). As relevant here, venue is appropriate 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). Because the claims arise from Patsy Fercho’s arrest in Lame Deer, Montana, Judge Cavan found that the District of Montana is an appropriate venue. Nelson, again, claims that Judge Cavan erred because there was “no wrongful arrest” and “no legally cognizable injury.” (Doc. 77 at 10.) However, these arguments are not relevant to the issue of venue. The Court therefore overrules the objection to venue.

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

Plackett v. Washington Deluxe Bus, Inc. · filed 2020-01-23(b)(2)

A plaintiff may bring a civil action in either “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 . . . giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)–(2). ... Because the event occurred in Maryland, see Eskridge Decl. ¶ 3, venue is proper there.

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

Korean American Association of Greater New York, Inc. v. Min · filed 2020-01-06(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the ... Southern District of New York because “a ... substantial part of the events . . . giving rise ... to [KAAGNY’s] claim[s] occurred” in ... Manhattan.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for trademark and unfair competition claims in a district where consumer confusion is a substantial part of the events giving rise to those claims.

PopSockets LLC v. Online King LLC · filed 2019-12-23(b)(2)

Accordingly, because customer confusion is a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s trademark and unfair competition claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue in the District of Colorado is proper.

Under § 1391(b)(2), the substantial events giving rise to a legal malpractice claim occurred where the allegedly deficient legal analysis was performed, rather than where resulting denial letters were sent.

Clarendon National Insurance Company v. Glickauf · filed 2019-12-23(b)(2)

Indeed, there is nothing clearly defective about Magistrate Judge Wang’s reliance on the aforementioned case law in determining that Defendants’ alleged erroneous legal analysis (which occurred in Georgia) comprised the “significant events” giving rise to Plaintiff’s malpractice claim rather than the effect of such alleged malpractice, i.e., sending the denial letters to Colorado.

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

MONROE v. ETHICON, INC. · filed 2019-12-23(b)(2)

Ms. Rogers’s action could have been brought in the Eastern District of Virginia and Ms. Monroe’s action in the Northern District of New York. ... The second basis of venue under Section 1391(b)(2) is the “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.”

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

Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Curti Ranch Two Maintenance Association, Inc. · filed 2019-12-16(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2) because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred here, and the property at issue and HOA involved are in this District.

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

Panchitkaew v. NY State Attorney General · filed 2019-12-17(b)

Most of the underlying events occurred in Nassau County, where Plaintiff and most of the Defendants reside. Plaintiff has related, ongoing litigation in the Eastern District of New York. Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Gennari Consulting, Inc. v. Wellington Corp, LLC · filed 2019-12-13(b)(2)

Because venue is proper in the Northern District of Ohio, and that court has personal jurisdiction over Gennari and Mr. Gennari, this suit could have been brought in the Northern District of Ohio.

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the action occurred.

REVZIP, LLC v. MCDONNELL · filed 2019-12-09(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district because Power House Subs’ place of business is Blair County, which is part of the Western District of Pennsylvania and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the action occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

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

Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management · filed 2019-11-27(b)(2)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) provides that “a civil action may be brought in . . . (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2). ... As a result, the Eastern District could have served as a proper venue in the first instance.

Section 1391 can permit venue in a district other than the one where the events underlying the claim occurred.

Johnson v. Wendy's Restaurant Corporation · filed 2019-11-22(b)(1), (c)(2), (d)

Although the events that are the basis for Plaintiff’s claims allegedly took place on Grand Island, Erie County, New York, which is in the Western District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 112(d), Plaintiff resides in this judicial district and this Court is a proper venue for this action, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (c)(2), (d); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).

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

Brown v. County of Kings · filed 2019-11-25(b)(2)

Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Fox v. U.S. Government · filed 2019-12-03(b)(2)

Moreover, venue is proper in that district, as a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” there.

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

Doe Child, a minor by his parents and next friends, John and Jane Doe v. Stark County Community Unit School District 100 · filed 2019-12-09(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred; economic harm felt in a district alone is insufficient.

K'OYITL'OTS'INA, LTD v. Gottschalk · filed 2019-11-22(b)(2)

Because a substantial amount of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s breach of contract claim did not occur in Alaska, venue in Alaska is not proper for this claim.

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

Car-Freshner Corporation v. Just Funky LLC · filed 2019-11-25(b)(2)

Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) establishes that this Court has venue because the events giving rise to the claim occurred within this jurisdiction, in Watertown, New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) places venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; earlier court rulings in a district do not establish venue for a claim arising from an arrest elsewhere.

Amachree v. Whitaker · filed 2019-12-02(b)(2)

These rulings are not the events giving rise to plaintiff’s action in this case. The events giving rise to this action are Amachree’s arrest and incarceration, which took place in Wisconsin. The fact that Amachree believes Defendants’ arrest of him violated an order issued by a court in this district does not mean that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” occurred in Illinois.

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

SCHRECENGOST v. COLOPLAST CORPORATION · filed 2019-12-02(b)(2)

Venue is proper because the case was transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania, where a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), § 1404(a).

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

Favor v. Stevenson-Bridges · filed 2019-11-15(b)

Because the relevant facts indicate that the acts complained of occurred in Los Angeles County, which lies within the venue of the Western Division of the Central District of California, see 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2), venue properly lies in that district and not inthis one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

(PC) Luther v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation · filed 2019-08-02(b)

In this case, the claim arose in San Diego County, which is in the Southern District of California. (See ECF No. 1 at 1.) Therefore, plaintiffs claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

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

Bailey v. Kirsch, M.D. · filed 2019-07-24(b)

In this case, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in Berks County and it appears that the defendants may be found in Berks County, which is within the venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

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

Petersen v. Overstreet · filed 2019-08-01(b)(2)

Rather, it appears that the proper venue for Plaintiff’s case under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) is the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama because that is where the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims seem to have occurred.

Section 1391(b) requires claims about wrongful conduct to be brought in a district where that conduct occurred when none is alleged to have occurred in the chosen district.

West v. Carpenter · filed 2019-07-12(b)

Moreover, to the extent that any cognizable claims still exist regarding the Plaintiff’s treatment while in BOP custody, such claims must be brought in the districts where the Plaintiff claims the allegedly wrongful conduct occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). As the Plaintiff does not claim that any of the allegedly wrongful conduct occurred in this District, he cannot bring such claims here.

Under § 1391(b), an accident in a district does not establish venue for a products liability claim when the alleged design, manufacture, and sale lack a connection to that district and the defendant does not reside there.

Derkach v. Postell Associates, Inc. · filed 2019-06-05(b)

The defendant is not a resident of this State, and although the accident occurred in Nebraska, the products liability claims relate to the design, manufacture, and sale of the allegedly defective product, none of which are alleged to bear a relationship to this State. As previously discussed, G-Force is not subject to this court’s personal jurisdiction. In short, venue is “wrong” in Nebraska for the purposes of transferring this case.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where the plaintiff received the contested texts and consented to receive them.

Oliver v. Lyft, Inc. · filed 2019-06-03(b)(2)

This argument is unconvincing — more substantial events giving rise to this action occurred in Georgia, where the contested texts were apparently received (see Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 7) and where plaintiff initially consented to receiving the promotional texts. In light of the foregoing, this order finds that venue is proper in the Southern District of Georgia.

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

Garity v. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2019-05-30(b)(2)

Furthermore, Venue is permitted 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). As explained in more detail below, a substantial part of the events allegedly giving rise to the claim occurred at Tetraphase’s headquarters. Plaintiff does not dispute that filing this case in the District of Massachusetts would have been proper. Thus, Defendants have established that the case could have been filed in the transferee court.

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

Grant v. ASPCA · filed 2019-06-18(b)(2)

Thus, while this Court appears to be an appropriate venue for this action, it is clear that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for this action.

Venue under § 1391(b)(1) or (2) is improper when no defendant involved in the claim resides in the district and the events giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.

Cardell Hill v. The City of New York · filed 2019-05-21(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant personally involved in his Staten Island housing claim resides in this district or that the events or omissions giving rise to this claim arose in this district, venue is not proper in this Court under §1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Bilbee v. Jay County Jail · filed 2019-06-05(b)

Venue for a civil action brought in federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Having reviewed the complaint, the Court finds that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana is the proper forum for this action. The defendant (and Plaintiff Bilbee) reside in Portland, Jay County, Indiana for purposes of the present complaint and the actions giving rise to the complaint occurred there.

Section 1391(b) provided no basis for venue in the District of Columbia where the property and all alleged events were in Texas.

Netis v. Sun West Mortgage Company · filed 2019-05-17(b)

None of the basis for venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) is applicable, as the property at issue and all alleged events occurred in Texas.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if another district has stronger ties to the claim.

Exelon Generation Co. v. Grumbles · filed 2019-03-29(b)(2)

Under the current version of § 1391, this Court must only decide whether a "substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred" in the District of Columbia for venue to be proper here. ... They establish that a substantial part of the events giving rise to this suit occurred in the District of Columbia and venue is proper here.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where the property and events at issue are located, even when a forum selection clause designates another court.

OKCDT Enterprise LLC v. CR Crawford Construction LLC · filed 2019-03-22(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s allegations are plainly sufficient to satisfy the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) to locate venue in the Western District of Oklahoma. ... Accordingly, dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) due to improper venue is not supported by reference to the cited Forum Selection Clause.

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

Fitzgibbon v. Radack · filed 2019-02-06(b)(1), (b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (1), an action can be brought in any district in which a defendant resides, and under § 1391(b) (2), an action may be brought in a district "in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." Here, Radack lives in the District of Columbia, and much of the disputed events happened in the District of Columbia. Thus, the action could have been brought there.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district with a substantial connection to the claim, even if another district has greater contacts.

BPI Development Group, L.C. v. Grange · filed 2016-03-28(b)(2)

Venue is proper in any district “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... But this case presents a breach of contract claim where Defendants allegedly reached into Iowa, soliciting a loan from an Iowa resident and agreeing to perform their obligations under the alleged loan agreement by remitting payment to Plaintiffs in Iowa. ... For the reasons stated, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, ECF No. 12, must be denied.

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

Gerlich v. Leath · filed 2016-01-22(b)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to the claims occurred within this District (“A civil action may be brought in ... a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.”).

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where the allegedly unlawful actions occurred.

Winter v. Pennsylvania State University · filed 2016-03-22(a)(1)

Venue is appropriate in the Middle District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1) because the purportedly unlawful actions were committed within this judicial district.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including the alleged exposure and medical treatment.

Rubio v. Monsanto Co. · filed 2016-03-24(b)

Finally, venue would have been proper in the Western District of Texas had the case been filed there originally. The propriety of venue in a particular district is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Rubio alleges exposure and medical treatment in the Western District of Texas, constituting “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim.”

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including delivery of allegedly false audit reports and resulting economic injury in the district.

Hawes v. Kabani & Co. · filed 2016-04-20(b)(2)

Finally, it is clear that economic injury occurs in Washington when a company headquartered here collapses. For the foregoing reasons, venue in this district is proper.

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

Walker v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2015-11-05(b)(2)

Because the transaction appears to have no connection to the District of Columbia, the Plaintiffs have not pled facts establishing that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the District of Columbia or that “a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated” in this jurisdiction.

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

Walker v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2015-11-06(b)(2)

Here, Plaintiffs have not pled any facts which might support transactional venue in the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs allege a mortgage secured for a property in Maryland, mortgage servicing associated with that property, a foreclosure proceeding initiated in the state of Maryland, and other acts associated with Plaintiffs’ Maryland property.

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

Balshe LLC v. Ross · filed 2015-07-23(b)

The venue statute provides - in relevant part that “A civil action may be brought 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). Plaintiffs' alleged and then offered'uncontested evidence showing that a substantial part of the events that gave rise to this claim occurred in the Northern District of Illinois, as did the negotiations giving rise to the agreement. Venue was proper here.

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

Quinn v. Fishkin · filed 2015-08-04(b)(2)

Here, venue in this district is proper because, drawing all reasonable inferences and resolving all factual conflicts in the favor of the plaintiff, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the Declaratory Judgment Claim occurred in Connecticut.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; for a declaratory judgment about an arbitration agreement, the relevant events concern the agreement rather than the underlying employment claim.

AlixPartners, LLP v. Brewington · filed 2015-09-09(b)(2)

But because of the connections between the formation, execution, and enforcement of the contract and this District, the Court finds that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” did occur in this District, as discussed above regarding personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court finds that venue in this District, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, is proper.

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

Sigala v. ABR of Va, Inc. · filed 2015-11-04(b)(2)

The Count will deny this request because Plaintiffs claims arise out of their work in Maryland. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (venue is proper in "a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events ... giving rise to the claim occurred").

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a contract was negotiated and executed when those events form a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

JB Aviation v. R Aviation Charter Services, LLC · filed 2015-11-12(b)(2)

As explained in the Bramble Declaration, Rosatti negotiated and executed the Brokerage Agreement at Rosatti’s car dealership in Brooklyn, which is located in the Eastern District of New York. This is sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing that the Eastern District of New York is an appropriate venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391 permits venue in the district where the alleged unlawful employment practices occurred.

Bryant v. Wilkes-Barre Hospital, Co. · filed 2015-11-17(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 since the alleged unlawful employment practices occurred in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) requires significant events material to the claim to have occurred in the district where suit is filed.

Blakely v. Lew · filed 2015-04-08(e)(1)(B)

These de minimis acts within the Southern District cannot satisfy this Court’s “substantiality” requirement for venue.

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

Hagan v. Quinn · filed 2015-03-23(b)

Venue is proper in this Court because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims took place in the Central District of Illinois. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including an alleged conspiracy and sales of infringing goods in the district.

Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc. v. Anne Ryan, LLC · filed 2015-02-10(b)(2)

Ronaldo argues that venue is appropriate in the Southern District of Mississippi under subsection two because the conspiracy with BGI originated in this district and the infringing works were sold in this district. ... The Court finds that these allegations are sufficient and venue is appropriate under this statute.

Under § 1391(b)(2), injury to reputation in a district can constitute a substantial part of the events giving rise to a defamation claim.

Hawbecker v. Hall · filed 2015-02-19(b)(2)

The Complaint alleges injury to Haw-becker’s reputation in the San Antonio Division of the Western District of Texas. Therefore a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claim is the injury to his reputation in San Antonio, Texas.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where a contractual offer giving rise to a contract claim was made.

Rogovsky Enterprise, Inc. v. Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc. · filed 2015-02-23(b)(2)

Accordingly, the Court finds that venue is proper, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs contractual claims occurred in Minnesota. Specifically, since the basis of the parties’ dispute arises from provisions in, and interpretation of, the contract, and the contractual offer occurred in Minnesota, then a substantial part of the events “giving rise” to the contract, as well as the subsequent contractual claims, occurred in Minnesota.

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

Quasebarth v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC · filed 2015-03-03(b)(2)

Finally, venue is proper in the Northern District because a substantial amount of the events giving rise to the Quasebarths’ claims occurred there. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for a trade secret claim when a substantial part of the events giving rise to it, including alleged disclosure and resulting harm, occurred in the district.

United Tactical Systems LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc. · filed 2015-05-11(b)(2)

Given these elements, a substantial part of the events giving rise to Real Action’s trade secret misappropriation claim occurred here as Real Action alleges that it owns trade secrets in California, Blumenthal and Piell assisted UTS in disclosing and using that trade secret in UTS’s TRO motion, and Real Action was harmed in California.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the weight of the alleged violations occurred, even when the complaint concerns events in other districts.

Washington v. Grace · filed 2011-09-26(b)

The case, as filed, complies with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), and Washington persuasively argues in his appellate brief that Middle District venue was proper, given the weight of violations occurring in that district.

Section 1391(a)(2) does not make a district a proper venue for an accident-related negligence claim solely because the plaintiff received follow-up medical treatment there.

Lyngholm v. Fedex Ground Package Systems, Inc. · filed 2011-03-01(a)(2)

The only event that occurred in this District was Ms. Lyngholm’s follow-up medical treatment, which does not constitute a substantial event giving rise to Plaintiffs’ negligence claims against LAD Tracking. Because the provisions of section 1391 are not satisfied as to LAD Trucking, venue in this District is improper as to Defendant LAD Trucking.

Section 1391(b) limits venue based on where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred; a claim filed in the wrong venue may be dismissed without prejudice for refiling in the proper venue.

Shaun Garland v. Skribner · filed 2010-10-05(b)

The district court properly dismissed Shaun Darnell Garland’s (“Garland”) claims against defendant Lewis, without prejudice, so that Garland could re-file them in the proper venue.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue based on alleged conduct in the district that gave rise to the claim; economic impact there is a separate matter.

National Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. v. Does · filed 2008-11-06(b)(2)

The economic impact of Defendants’ actions, however, is a separate issue from the events giving rise to the action. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in support of it Motion for TRO provides more details, stating that "there are many individuals and entities who manufacture and distribute Counterfeit Merchandise in and from [this district].” (PL’s Mem., Doc. No. 2-7, at 5.) This allegation is sufficient for notice pleading, and has not been challenged as there are, in fact, no challengers to this action.