28 U.S.C. § 1391

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; the district need not be where most events occurred.

Park Inn International, L.L.C. v. Mody Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2000-06-28(a)(2)

The statute only requires a “substantial part” of the events to have occurred in the District to establish venue. It does not require a majority of the events to take place here, nor that the challenged forum be the best forum for the lawsuit to be venued. ... Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) provides an additional ground to deny defendants’ motion.

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

Hoffer v. InfoSpace. Com, Inc. · filed 2000-06-29(a)(2)

Despite the tortured spin Hoffer places on the instant matter, it appears venue was improperly laid in this District. ... By contrast, venue is proper in the Western District of Washington. As discussed in detail above, the driving issue in this litigation is the alleged breach of the 25 June 1996 Employment Agreement by the Defendants. Indeed, the substantial events, if not all of the events, giving rise to the primary claim, and the other claims, arising out of this matter transpired in Redmond, Washington.

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

Gallant v. Trustees of Columbia University in New York · filed 2000-09-02(a)

Venue for this action would be proper in the Southern District of New York, as the allegations in this case center on the care provided to the decedent in that district.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, even if more events occurred elsewhere.

Calkins v. Dollarland, Inc. · filed 2000-09-26(a)(2)

This Court finds that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Calkins’ claim arose in New Jersey. This conclusion rests on the broad understanding of “substantial” as reflected in the 1990 amendments to the venue statute and as applied by other courts.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a substantial part of the events occurred, including events carried out through electronic access.

Peridyne Technology Solutions, LLC v. Matheson Fast Freight, Inc. · filed 2000-10-16(b)

The fact that the defendants used computers and telephones to enter Georgia does not make venue in Georgia improper. Rather, the court finds that a substantial part of the events in this case occurred in Georgia and so venue is proper in this court under Section 1391(b).

Economic injury in the plaintiff’s district, without additional events there giving rise to the claim, does not establish venue under § 1391(a)(2).

Hicklin Engineering, L.C. v. Bartell · filed 2000-10-18(a)(2)

However, economic damage experienced by the plaintiff in the forum state, without additional contact inside the forum, is not enough to satisfy federal venue requirements.

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

Texas Marine & Brokerage, Inc. v. Euton · filed 2000-07-18(b)(2)

This Court finds that these advertisements, along with other events listed in the affidavits submitted to the Court, serve as “substantial” events which have given rise to this lawsuit. ... Venue is proper within the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if most of the alleged conduct occurred elsewhere.

Bigham v. Envirocare of Utah, Inc. · filed 2000-12-06(b)(2)

While the Court agrees that the overwhelming majority of Defendants’ allegedly wrongful actions occurred outside the Southern District of Texas, the Court cannot hold that the events that did purportedly happen here are not “substantial.”

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

Control Laser Corp. v. Rocky Mountain Instrument Co. · filed 2000-12-13(a)

The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. ... Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), as the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. Although certain events did occur in Colorado, it is plain that a substantial part of the events occurred in Florida.

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

Sky Technology Partners, LLC v. Midwest Research Institute · filed 2000-12-21(a)(2)

Under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), a plaintiff may file a diversity action “in any forum where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim arose; this includes any forum with a substantial connection with the plaintiffs claim.” ... Under these circumstances, and in light of the fact that the current venue statute was intended to broaden the former law governing venue in diversity cases, First of Michigan Corp., 141 F.3d at 263, this Court concludes that venue in this district is proper and that defendants’ motion for dismissal for improper venue is without merit.

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

Börs v. United States · filed 2001-01-08(a)(2)

The basic venue statute provides that venue is proper in a judicial district "in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred...." See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2). ... Applying this standard to this case, the court holds that venue is proper in the District of Arizona. All the operative facts occurred in Arizona.

Section 1391(f)(1) permits venue in an action against a foreign state where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including relevant communications directed to the district through brokers.

U.S. Titan, Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co., Ltd. · filed 2001-02-15(f)(1)

Zhen Hua correctly argues that the apposite venue provision is 28 U.S.C. § 1391(f) (concerning civil actions against foreign states) rather than 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (concerning civil actions not founded solely on diversity of citizenship). ... That many of Zhen Hua’s communications reached Titan’s offices in New York through the Connecticut brokers does not alter the fact that Zhen Hua directed communications to New York. Accordingly, venue in the Southern District of New York was proper.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, including the place where a contract was performed.

Cummings v. Western Trial Lawyers Ass'n · filed 2001-03-12(a)(2)

Thus, because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and quantum meruit claims against the WTLA occurred in Arizona, venue in Arizona is proper regarding the WTLA.

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

Executive Airlines, Inc. v. Van Benthuysen · filed 2001-03-22(a)(2)

However, the Court finds that it is not relevant to this dispute where the Defendant denied for the first time that Executive was his employer-as he may have the Court believe, ... but rather, where he was employed, by whom, and the reasons for his discharge. ... All of these facts occurred in Puerto Rico. Consequently, this Court is the proper venue for Plaintiffs complaint.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where alleged trademark infringement would cause customer confusion.

Make Up For Ever, S.A. v. Soho Forever, LLC · filed 2000-12-12(b)

Thus, under Section 1391(b), venue lies in any jurisdiction in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. ... The infringing products would necessarily be sold in this district. The customer confusion caused by the infringing conduct would occur in this district. Therefore, venue is proper here.

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

Pasulka v. Sykes · filed 2001-02-09(a)(2)

The telephone conversations between Mr. Pasulka in Illinois and Mr. Sykes on the east coast and the actions taken By Mr. Pasulka on Mr. Sykes’ behalf are sufficiently connected to the cause of action to render venue proper in this district. Mr. Sykes’ motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial event giving rise to the claim occurred, even if that event is undisputed.

Uffner v. La Reunion Francaise, S.A. · filed 2001-03-26(a)(2)

We conclude that, in a suit against an insurance company to recover for losses resulting from a vessel casualty, the jurisdiction where that loss occurred is "substantial" for venue purposes.

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

K-Tel International, Inc. v. Tristar Products, Inc. · filed 2001-03-28(a)(2)

This Court finds that venue is proper in the District of Minnesota, because it finds that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) a substantial part of the Plaintiffs claim arose in the District of Minnesota.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in more than one district when a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in each.

Remick v. Manfredy · filed 2001-04-12(a)(2)

In this case, we find that venue properly lies in both this district and the Northern District of Illinois as three of the four defendants reside in that district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the plaintiffs claims occurred in both fora.

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

Royal Insurance Co. of America v. Reliance Insurance · filed 2001-04-19(a)(2)

Venue is properly laid in this Court pursuant to title 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District.

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

TIG Ins. Co. v. NAFCO Ins. Co., Ltd. · filed 2001-04-23(b)(2)

Based on its review of the operative venue facts in this case the Court concludes that Plaintiff has provided enough evidence to establish that these Texas-based events and omissions were "substantial" for pur poses of § 1391(b)(2) and therefore that venue is proper in this district.

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

Ramada Franchise Systems, Inc. v. Hanna Hotel Enterprises, LLC · filed 2001-05-04(b)(2)

Because a “substantial part” of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this judicial district, venue is proper under § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) allows venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; for trademark claims, the relevant events must relate to the alleged infringement or dilution.

Taylor & Francis Group, PLC v. McCue · filed 2001-05-09(b)(2)

The only facts relevant to a venue analysis are those facts that constitute a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim. In this situation, therefore, only those events that relate to the alleged infringement or dilution are relevant.

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

Fireworks Spectacular, Inc. v. Premier Pyrotechnics, Inc. · filed 2001-05-17(a)(2)

Venue is proper in the District of Kansas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Kansas.

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

Miles v. Radio · filed 2001-06-20(a)(2)

Venue is proper in a judicial district in which a “substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim arose.” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2)). Miles has not claimed that any event, act, or omission that is the basis of his claims occurred in any part of Michigan, let alone the Eastern District. The court did not err in finding venue improper, and the court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the suit.

Section 1391(f)(1) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, even if most events occurred elsewhere.

Coyle v. P.T. Garuda Indonesia · filed 2001-06-27(f)(1)

Venue is proper under § 1391(f)(1) if a “substantial part” of the events or omissions occurred in this district. The statute does not require that a majority of the events take place here, nor that the Oregon be the “best” forum or have the most substantial contacts.

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

2215 Fifth Street Associates, LP v. U-Haul International, Inc. · filed 2001-07-09(a)(2)

Despite defendant’s argument to the contrary, the Court finds that venue is proper in the District of Columbia pursuant to § 1391(a)(2) because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred [in this District], or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated [in this District].” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2). Given the location of the Property and the centrality of the Property to the negotiations regarding the Option Agreement, venue properly lies here in the 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.

Williams v. Bowman · filed 2001-07-26(b)(2)

Venue in the Eastern District would have been proper because a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that district.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred, including where contracted wages went unpaid.

Walsh v. Alarm Security Group, Inc. · filed 2001-07-31(a)(2)

In this case, the event giving rise to all of Plaintiffs causes of action is the refusal of the Defendants to honor their contract and make payment to Plaintiff in Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs injury occurred as a result of the non-payment of wages and other benefits of employment due in Pennsylvania. Moreover, this Court has found that Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with this district to be subject to personal jurisdiction. Therefore, we find venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue is denied.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a diversity action where a substantial part of the events occurred, even if venue is also proper in another district.

Indymac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. v. Reyad · filed 2001-08-10(a)(2)

The plaintiffs have shown that a substantial part of the of the events occurred here, and thus is sufficient for the purposes of section 1391(a)(2).

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

Shenandoah Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Tirana · filed 2001-08-15(a)(2)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) requires that for venue to be proper, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” must have occurred in the district. ... None of the alleged harms occurred within Maryland or had any association with Maryland law. Thus, according to the statute, venue is only proper in the Eastern District of Virginia.

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

Universal Premium Acceptance Corp. v. Preferred National Insurance · filed 2001-08-24(a)(2)

Venue is proper in the District of Kansas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Kansas.

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

Newman Ex Rel. Wallace v. FIRST ATLANTIC RESOURCES · filed 2001-08-31(a)(2)

A “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [Plaintiffs] claim[s]” occurred in the Middle District of North Carolina. 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Accordingly, this district is a proper venue for Plaintiffs claims.

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

Republic Credit Corp. I v. Rance · filed 2001-09-20(a)(2)

Based on the contract language placing the transaction in Iowa, the Court also holds that a substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this judicial district, therefore venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2).

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

Pro Spice, Inc. v. Omni Trade Group, Inc. · filed 2001-09-20(a)(2)

The Court finds that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) since a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred here.

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

Robbins Motor v. US Sea Launch · filed 2001-10-11(b)

When applying this provision, a court must look “not to a single ‘triggering event’ prompting the action, but to the entire sequence of events underlying the claim.” ... In this case, I determine that the court has venue over this dispute for the same reasons that it has personal jurisdiction over USSL.

Under § 1391(a)(2), venue is improper in a district where none of the acts underlying the claims occurred.

Bearse v. Main Street Investments · filed 2001-10-25(a)(2)

These claims involve alleged fraud in the sale of the Bonds; the sale took place in Florida. In short, venue is improper as to these claims against these Defendants for the same reasons that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. None of the acts with which they are charged occurred in Massachusetts.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a diversity action in the district where an airplane crash giving rise to the claims occurred.

Cali v. East Coast Aviation Services., Ltd. · filed 2001-11-14(a)(2)

Here, the airplane crashed near the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Airport in Pennsylvania. Thus, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the MDPA, and venue is therefore proper in that district.

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

Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Inc. v. Rivenburgh · filed 2001-11-30(b)

Defendants Rivenburgh and Gheen are assigned and located in this district, as are a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim including the administrative record, although the property which is the subject of the action, the MCCC mine site, is indisputably sited in Kentucky. Accordingly, the action properly might have been brought in either this district or the Eastern District of Kentucky under the statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Bank One, N.A. v. Euro-Alamo Investments, Inc. · filed 2002-01-08(a)(2)

Because this judicial district is one in which occurred a substantial part of. the events or omissions giving rise to the claims that Bank One asserts, venue is proper here.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a district with a substantial connection to the claim, even if substantial events also occurred elsewhere.

PTG LOGISTICS, LLC v. Bickel's Snack Foods, Inc. · filed 2002-01-12(a)(2)

The payments made by BSF to PTG were made in Ohio. The damage resulting from BSF’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations was felt in this judicial district. Ohio has a substantial connection to the plaintiffs claim. Therefore, venue in the Southern District of Ohio is proper.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where communications and other events in a district form a substantial part of the claim, even if the defendant was never physically there.

Master Tech Products, Inc. v. Smith · filed 2002-01-15(b)(2)

Smith’s own actions directed at Master Tech in Illinois, as well as Moore’s and Mitchell’s actions, including making telephone calls and sending confidentiality agreements, are even more than “part of the historical predicate” for the RICO claim; they are the essence of the claim and form a substantial part of the events giving rise to it. Thus they are sufficient to establish venue in this district under § 1391(b)(2).

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

Rusty Eck Ford-Mercury Corp. of Leavenworth v. American Custom Coachworks, Ltd. · filed 2002-01-23(a)(2)

Under § 1391(a)(2), venue is proper here if a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the plaintiffs cause of action occurred in the District of Kansas. ... Here, it is clear that a substantial portion of the activities giving rise to this cause of action occurred in the District of Kansas.

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

Moreno v. Milk Train, Inc. · filed 2002-01-24(b)

The Court is of the opinion that venue is proper in the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.

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

Billing v. Commerce One, Inc. · filed 2002-02-08(a)(2)

Venue must be proper in the district to which transfer is sought. In diversity cases, such as this one, venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), which provides: ... Many of the acts and omissions occurred within Maryland and therefore fall within the judicial district of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; the focus is the connection between those events and the claim.

Moore v. AT & T Latin America Corp. · filed 2001-08-29(a)(2)

The fact that the underlying contracts were entered into by ICCA as opposed to AT & T Latin is inconsequential because the focus of § 1391 is the nexus between the facts and the cause of action, not the defendant and the cause of action.

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

Egervary v. Young · filed 2001-09-06(b)(2)

I therefore conclude that a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiffs claim occurred in this District and venue is proper under § 1391(b)(2).

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

Schwartz v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. · filed 2002-02-23(a)(2)

Venue in the District of New Jersey would be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), as it is the district in which a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

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

Jones v. Tread Rubber Corp. · filed 2002-03-04(a)(2)

While the defendants argue that neither prong of § 1391 has been met, the plaintiff has produce evidence by way of an affidavit, which if taken as true, establishes that the second prong of § 1391 has been satisfied. That prong provides that venue is proper in the judicial district in which “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.”

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

Virgin Wireless, Inc. v. Virgin Enterprises Ltd. · filed 2002-04-26(b)

Venue is also proper in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s]” occurred in that district.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, even if venue is also proper elsewhere.

Jacobsen v. Oliver · filed 2002-04-29(a)(2)

Accordingly, plaintiffs are not required to establish that the District of Columbia has the most substantial contacts to the dispute, but rather only that “a substantial part of the events occurred” here.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, even if substantial events also occurred elsewhere.

Jamhour v. Scottsdale Insurance · filed 2002-05-03(a)(2)

The fact that substantial activities took place in Ohio does not disqualify Louisiana as a proper venue as long as “substantial” activities took place in Louisiana too.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in any district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, without requiring a comparison among districts.

Audi AG & Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Izumi · filed 2002-05-23(b)(2)

Based on the broad statutory language, it is quite possible for venue to exist in more than one forum. The statute requires only that a substantial part of the events or omissions transpires in the district, but it does not require a party to weigh which of several districts possesses the most substantial part.

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

Atari v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2002-07-17(a)(2)

Transfer of this case, which is founded on diversity of citizenship, would violate none of the relevant statutory proscriptions. Atari could have brought the case in the District of New Jersey, where the alleged incident occurred, and UPS is subject to personal jurisdiction in that district based on the presence of its Mahwah facility and the business it conducts in the state, among other reasons.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim to occur in the district; one local repair among six did not establish venue when manufacture and sale occurred elsewhere.

Cannon v. Newmar Corp. · filed 2002-07-17(b)(2)

The Dutch Star was manufactured in Indiana, and parts of it were supplied by third-party defendant Spartan in Michigan. The Dutch Star was sold and warranties were entered in the Western District of New York. Of the six repairs that have taken place, only one of them occurred in New York, New York. Therefore, venue is not appropriate in the Southern District of New York under this standard either.

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

Reilly v. Chambers · filed 2002-08-08(a)(2)

Accordingly, a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise” to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Southern District of West Virginia, providing venue here under § 1391(a)(2).

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

Washington Square Securities, Inc. v. Sowers · filed 2002-08-09(a)(2), (b)(2)

But plaintiff has shown that its failure to supervise, fraudulent concealment, breaches of fiduciary duty, and common law fraud occurred in Washington Square’s Minneapolis office. Because these acts or omissions arguably occurred in Minnesota, this is an appropriate venue.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a diversity action where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, even if relevant omissions also occurred elsewhere.

Creative Socio-Medics, Corp. v. City of Richmond · filed 2002-08-21(a)(2)

In this case, the omissions giving rise to this action occurred in both New York and Virginia because the dispute concerns whether the parties performed under the Agreement. Richmond allegedly failed to make payments from Virginia, which is an omission that took place in Virginia. CSM in turn allegedly failed to meet any of its deadlines, which is an omission that took place in New York because, as previously established, most of the services to be performed by CSM were to be performed in New York. Accordingly, venue in this district is proper.

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

B-S Steel of Kansas, Inc. v. Texas Industries, Inc. · filed 2002-09-03(b)(2)

Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) provides that venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” ... Because Plaintiff ordered, paid for and received steel delivered in Kansas, all of the transactions occurred, at least in part, in this state. ... Thus, venue is proper.

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

Kawamoto v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc. · filed 2002-09-19(a)(2)

Venue is proper here because a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” occurred in Hawaii. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2).

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

Valley Community Preservation Commission v. Mineta · filed 2002-09-26(a)

The first question the Court must decide in assessing whether this case should be transferred, is whether this action could have been brought in New Mexico. The answer is yes. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) (2000) venue is proper in a “judicial district where any defendant resides ... [or] in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred ... [or] a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” Clearly, the events or omissions of greatest significance to this litigation occurred in New Mexico, and defendant Thomas resides there.

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

Brown v. Stallworth · filed 2002-12-12(a)

Plaintiff can clearly establish that venue is proper in Maryland under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because, contrary to Stallworth’s assertion, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred here.

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

Central States Industrial Supply, Inc. v. McCullough · filed 2002-08-26(a)(2)

In light of the facts, including McCullough’s residing in Iowa, being employed with CPI, an Iowa corporation located in Cedar Rapids Iowa, under an Iowa contract, the court finds that a substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this judicial district making venue proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a diversity action where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where the contracted services were largely performed.

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP v. City of Tulsa · filed 2002-09-03(a)(2)

Thus, over the four years that Tulsa worked with Paul Hastings, a substantial part of the events giving rise to this breach of contract claim occurred in the Northern District of Georgia. Venue is proper in this court, and Tulsa’s motion to dismiss for improper venue [Doc. No. 8-1] is hereby DENIED.

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

Beatty Caribbean, Inc. v. Viskase Sales Corp. · filed 2003-01-10(a)(2)

However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) actions based on diversity jurisdiction such as the one presently before us may be brought in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”. As further described below the issue present in this litigation arose from a commercial relationship that originated, subsequently developed and eventually partially concluded in Puerto Rico. Therefore, venue in this jurisdiction is proper inasmuch as there is a substantial connection between plaintiffs cause of action and this forum.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in the district where the alleged injury occurred.

Smith v. Schmidt · filed 2002-11-22(b)(2)

Because Smith alleged that the “locus of the injury” was the parole hearing, which occurred in the Central District of California, venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue for a Lanham Act product disparagement claim solely because the plaintiff’s inventory is located in the district.

Bassili v. Chu · filed 2002-12-24(b)(2)

In this court’s view, the fact that the plaintiffs’ products might be found in a warehousing or distribution facility located within the district, and that the dissemination of false information over the Internet may cause a diminution in value of the inventory, is simply too tenuous a connection with the forum to require a California resident to defend a product disparagement action here.

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

Ingram v. Eli Lilly & Co. · filed 2003-01-29(a)

The first question the Court must decide in assessing whether this case should be transferred is whether this action could have been brought in Washington. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) (2000), venue is proper in a “judicial district where any defendant resides ... [or] in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred ...” Neither party disputes that this action could have been brought in Washington because that is the location where plaintiffs mother received and ingested the DES at issue in this case.

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

Amer Motorists Ins v. Cellstar Corporation · filed 2003-01-29(a)(2)

Because significant events relating to the formation and execution of the Policy occurred in Houston, we are not persuaded that the district court abused its discretion by denying Cellstar’s motion to dismiss for improper venue.

In a diversity action, a plaintiff claiming venue where a substantial part of the events occurred must support that claim with facts or evidence connecting those events to the district.

Von Graffenreid v. Craig · filed 2003-02-14(a)

A civil action where jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship must be brought in the judicial district where: (1) any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). ... However, no facts are alleged in support of that assertion. Nor has von Graffenreid presented any evidence of events or omissions that occurred in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue where the events giving rise to the claim occurred in other districts, even if related goods were manufactured in the proposed district.

Omaha Tribe of Nebraska v. Barnett · filed 2003-02-24(b)(2)

I conclude that subsection (1) does not apply, as all defendants do not live in the same state; subsection (2) does not apply as all activities and events happened in South Dakota, Missouri and Iowa, including the filing of each lawsuit.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, including where an allegedly defective crane was installed.

Saudi v. Northrop Grumman Corp. · filed 2003-03-19(a)(2)

Therefore, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Eastern District of Virginia, which includes Newport News, under subsection (a)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the planning giving rise to a Bivens claim occurred, even if the resulting event took place elsewhere.

Freeman v. Fallin · filed 2003-03-24(b)(2)

Therefore, the court concludes that a substantial portion of the events giving rise to Mr. Freeman’s claim occurred in this district and that as a result, venue is proper under section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(a)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim to occur in the district; tangential correspondence and telephone calls do not establish venue.

Loeb v. Bank of America · filed 2003-03-24(a)(2)

To establish venue, plaintiff relies upon correspondence and telephone calls. These are woefully insufficient to establish venue in this district. While the statute recognizes that a “substantial” part of the events or omissions forming the basis of a cause of action may occur in more than one district, incidental events, such as the correspondence and calls Loeb relies on, that have only some tangential connection with the dispute in litigation are not enough.

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

National Council on Compensation Insurance v. Caro & Graifman, P.C. · filed 2003-03-31(b)

Under the facts of this case, venue is proper because this court has significant contacts with the events or omissions surrounding the underlying mortgage. The court presided over Gall’s criminal case and issued the Restitution Order that forms the underlying basis for this litigation. There is no dispute that Gall is a Connecticut resident and that the mortgage was executed in Connecticut.

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

Akers v. Bishop · filed 2003-05-02(b)

First, we conclude that venue was proper in Kentucky and improper in Tennessee because the substantial part of the events giving rise to Akers’s claims occurred in Lexington, Kentucky. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, even if most occurred elsewhere.

Interlease Aviation Investors II (ALOHA) L.L.C. v. Vanguard Airlines, Inc. · filed 2003-05-15(a)(2)

For venue to be proper under § 1391(a)(2), a majority of the events giving rise to the claim need not occur in the venue, only a “substantial part.” ... Thus, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district and venue is proper.

Section 1391(a)(2) does not permit venue based solely on a plaintiff’s health when no events underlying the claim occurred in that district.

Hampton v. Gregory · filed 2003-02-07(a)(2)

Hampton does not claim that any event, act, or action which forms the basis of his complaint occurred in the Northern District of Ohio. To the contrary, the events in question occurred in Louisiana and Texas. Hampton’s only reason for filing his case in the Northern District of Ohio is based on his health. This reason does not satisfy the requirements of § 1391(a)(2).

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

Jenkins Brick Company, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. John E. Bremer, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, Aaa · filed 2003-02-21(a)(2)

Only the events that directly give rise to a claim are relevant. And of the places where the events have taken place, only those locations hosting a “substantial part” of the events are to be considered.

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

In Re US Office Products Co. Securities Litigat. · filed 2003-03-04(a)(2)

As the Miller court determined in evaluating the New Jersey acts, this court determines that the acts occurring in the District of Columbia comprise a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims in the complaint, while the acts that occurred in Connecticut do not.

Section 1391(a)(2) does not make venue proper where the plaintiff received medical care after an injury that occurred elsewhere.

Arriaga v. Imperial Palace, Inc. · filed 2003-03-20(a)(2)

An appropriate venue is one in which a substantial part of the event or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or where the underlying transactions took place. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s allegation with regard to venue is unfounded and that this Court is an improper venue.

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

International Truck and Engine Corp. v. Quintana · filed 2003-04-29(b)(2)

Here, a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district. Further, Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants used the INTERNATIONAL trademark on their Internet website, which was accessible in the Northern District of Texas. Moreover, Plaintiffs, who are doing business in the Northern District of Texas, were allegedly injured in this district. The court finds that venue is proper as to the action against Defendants.

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

Clark v. Burger King Corp. · filed 2003-04-04(b)(2)

Any civil action wherein jurisdiction is not found solely on the diversity of citizenship may be brought in a district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2); ... Since, BKC does business in Florida, and the alleged violations occurred at BKC owned restaurants nationwide, the action could have been brought in the Southern District of Florida.

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

Beaton v. Manley, et al. · filed 2003-05-12(a)(2)

The events or omissions giving rise to plaintiff’s claims – namely the procedures under which defendants took their respective public offices – all occurred in Vermont. Thus, venue in New Hampshire may not be grounded on 28 U . S . C . § 1391(a)(2), which also points toward Vermont.

Section 1391(a)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim to occur in the district; a peripheral effect on a business there is insufficient.

Greenblatt v. Gluck · filed 2003-06-03(a)(2)

The Amended Complaint does not allege that a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred in this district, nor does the dispute involve any property located in this district. The only potential contact with New York is that Greenblatt claims his New York business was somehow peripherally affected by the alleged torts. Such allegations do not rise to the level of significance as required by § 1391(a)(2). As a result, the complaint must be dismissed.

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

Beckley v. Auto Profit Masters, L.L.C. · filed 2003-06-03(b)

Since Plaintiffs have alleged that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in this district, venue here is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

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

McClamrock v. Eli Lilly and Co. · filed 2003-06-04(a)

Because most, if not all, of the “events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in North Carolina, this action could have properly been brought in that jurisdiction.

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

Mikkilineni v. Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance · filed 2003-06-09(b)(2)

In addition, because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Western District of Pennsylvania, that district is the most appropriate venue for this action.

Section 1391(a)(2) does not make venue proper where the plaintiff received information about a transaction when the contract giving rise to the claim was drafted and signed elsewhere.

Miller v. Berman · filed 2003-07-23(a)(2)

However, in light of the facts set forth in the record, it is evident that venue is improper in Florida as this case arises out of Mr. Miller’s contract with Cougar Marine, a South African company. The drafting and signing of the contract between Mr. Miller and Mr. Morrow occurred in South Africa.

Section 1391(a)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim to have occurred in the district; signing a contract there or feeling damages there does not, by itself, establish venue for a breach-of-contract claim.

Abramoff v. Shake Consulting, L.L.C. · filed 2003-08-05(a)(2)

Moreover, although the plaintiff may have entered the agreement in the District of Columbia, entry into an agreement does not automatically qualify as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a breach-of-contract claim. ... Finally, the fact that the plaintiff may feel damages in the District of Columbia does not create venue under section 1391(a)(2).

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a diversity case when the chosen district has a substantial connection to the claim, even if another district has stronger ties.

Pecoraro v. Sky Ranch for Boys, Inc. · filed 2003-08-18(a)(2)

Finally, we hold that venue is proper in the District of Nebraska. Venue is proper in a diversity case 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(a)(2). In making our determination, we do not ask which district among two or more potential forums is the "best" venue, rather, we ask whether the district the plaintiff chose had a substantial connection to the claim, whether or not other forums had greater contacts. Setco Enter. v. Robbins, 19 F.3d 1278, 1281 (8th Cir.1994). While South Dakota's connection to the defendants is much stronger, we find, based on the above discussion of minimum contacts, that Nebraska also has a substantial connection to Pecoraro's claim.

In a diversity action, venue is proper in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Resnick v. Rowe · filed 2003-09-08(a)(2)

As Rowe (on behalf of himself, Friedman, and Lenders Depot) allegedly traveled to Hawaii, conducted negotiations in Hawaii, made alleged misrepresentations in Hawaii, and spoke with people in Hawaii regarding the sale of the Golf Course Properties, Resnick has shown that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Resnick’s claims occurred in Hawaii for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2).

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

Ainbinder v. Potter · filed 2003-09-19(a)(2)

Under § 1391(a)(2), venue is proper where "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” A substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claim in Count I-and the unjust enrichment claim relating to the truck equipment in Count II-occurred in New York because the Settlement Agreement was negotiated and finalized in New York and the payments were to be made by the plaintiffs from New York.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a district with a substantial connection to the claim even if more events occurred elsewhere.

Amphion, Inc. v. Buckeye Electric Co. · filed 2003-09-25(a)(2)

Thus, even if a majority of the events occurred in the Southern District of Ohio, venue can still be proper in the Eastern District of Michigan if there is a substantial connection or contact between this case and the district. ... Consequently, venue is proper in this district and the Court will deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss the action for improper venue.

Section 1391(a)(2) does not establish venue for a defamation claim where the plaintiff suffered injury if the events giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.

Lomanno v. Black · filed 2003-09-29(a)(2)

It appears as if all of the “events” giving rise to Lomanno’s defamation claim occurred in Virginia, and the fact that Lo-manno suffered injury within Pennsylvania is not enough to establish venue pursuant to Section 1391(a)(2). Therefore, the Court finds that venue is improperly laid within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as to the defamation claim.

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

Glendora v. Dolan · filed 2003-07-29(a)(2)

The district court properly dismissed the complaint for improper venue. Venue is proper in a judicial district in which a “substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim arose.” ... Glendora does not claim that any event, act, or action which forms the basis of her complaint occurred in the Northern District of Ohio.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue in a district merely because internet message board postings can be accessed there.

Equidyne Corp. v. John Does 1-21 · filed 2003-08-18(b)(2)

Second, as discussed in the previous section, Delaware is not a state where a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claim occurred because the Court has found that posting to message boards on the internet is not sufficient to constitute an act or transaction in Delaware.

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

Shropshire v. Fred Rappoport Co. · filed 2003-10-03(b)

The Court concludes that venue in the Northern District of California is proper under § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims took place in this District.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred; related litigation elsewhere does not itself establish venue.

Farmer v. Levenson · filed 2003-10-30(a)(2)

However, the litigation that took place outside of the Northern District of Georgia does not constitute “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s]” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2). The Northern District of Georgia is the proper venue for the Farmers’ claims.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires events giving rise to the claim to have occurred substantially in the chosen district; speculation that they occurred there does not establish venue.

Davis v. American Society of Civil Engineers · filed 2003-11-04(b)(2)

Moreover, the court will not accept mere speculation of such occurrences as sufficient to establish venue pursuant to section 1391(b).

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

H. LEWIS PACKAGING, LLC v. Spectrum Plastics, Inc. · filed 2003-12-11(a)(2)

In light of the foregoing discussion applicable to personal jurisdiction, venue is proper pursuant to § 1391(a)(2). ... As such, it cannot be said that a substantial part of events significant to the claim did not occur in Connecticut.

Section 1391 permits venue where the disputed agreement and original recordings giving rise to a claim occurred, even if a later sale or recording happened elsewhere.

Brown v. Flowers · filed 2003-12-12

However, even if the final act in question is a sale or recording occurring outside of the state, the primary focus of this lawsuit is whether Mr. Flowers sold any recordings from the original Durham recordings, and whether any such sales violated any agreement between Mr. Brown and Mr. Flowers. As the contract in question and the recordings in question are the very things giving rise to this cause of action, and as both of these occurred in Durham, venue is proper in the Middle District of North Carolina.

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

McClure v. Manchin · filed 2003-12-22(b)(2)

Although a civil action could be brought in the Southern District under § 1391(b)(1)— and perhaps § 1391(b)(2) also — proper venues are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, venue is subject to the choice of the plaintiffs, not the defendant. Thus, under § 1391(b)(2), venue is appropriate in the Northern District because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred here.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a district with a substantial connection to the claim even if more of the relevant events occurred elsewhere.

IFL Group Inc. v. World Wide Flight Services, Inc. · filed 2004-03-02(a)(2)

Thus, even if a majority of the events occurred in the Western District of Washington, venue can still be proper in the Eastern District of Michigan if there is a substantial connection or contact between this case and the district. ... Consequently, venue is proper in this district and the Court will deny Defendant’s- motion to dismiss the action for improper venue.

Sections 1391(b)(2) and (f)(1) permit venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred, even if more events occurred elsewhere.

Concesionaria DHM, S.A. v. International Finance Corp. · filed 2004-03-06(b)(2), (f)(1)

The language of § 1391(b)(2) and § 1391(f)(1) requires courts to apply a substantial contacts test. ... Venue is appropriate in each district where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, and thus venue may appropriate in this district even if a greater portion of events occurred elsewhere. ... Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs, the Court concludes that a substantial part of the events and omissions that gave rise to the causes of action occurred in New York City.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where events forming a substantial part of the claim’s historical predicate occurred.

Schwarz v. National Van Lines, Inc. · filed 2004-02-24(b)(2)

Venue also is proper in the District of Arizona. Schwarz entered into the contract in Arizona, and the original locar tion of Schwarz’s belongings in and the shipping of these belongings from Arizona form a part of the historical predicate of the claim.

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

Young Again Products, Inc. v. Acord · filed 2004-03-11(b)(2)

Defendants’ claim of improper venue is equally unpersuasive. Venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. This statute permits jurisdiction 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 the property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). As the Court must accept for purposes of this motion, the contract between the parties, which underlies the breach of contract claim, was entered into in Maryland, and Internet traffic was directed into Maryland and resulted in sales. Therefore, venue is proper in Maryland.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where defendants targeted advertising that gave rise to the claim.

Liban v. Churchey Group II, L.L.C. · filed 2004-02-26(b)(2)

The court concludes that venue is proper in the District of Columbia under § 1391(b)(2). By placing an advertisement in the Washington Post, the defendants targeted their marketing and advertising efforts to the District of Columbia.

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

Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services v. Rigas · filed 2004-03-17(a)(2)

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.

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

McCuiston v. Hoffa · filed 2004-04-14(b)(2)

The NLRA does not contain its own venue provision, so claims under the Act 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)(2). Because the election occurred here and the contract is in effect here, this forum does have a substantial connection to the events involved in the claim, and therefore I find this court is a proper venue for the NLRA claim.

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

Stratagene v. Parsons Behle & Latimer · filed 2004-04-29(a)(2)

A plaintiff may properly bring a federal diversity action 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(a)(2). ... Because the entire Invitrogen litigation has occurred and continues in this court, “any injuries suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the alleged malpractice were sustained in Maryland.” ... Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue under § 1404(a) to Utah will be denied.

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

Roselink Investors, L.L.C. v. Shenkman · filed 2004-05-19(a)(2)

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred within this district.

In a diversity action, § 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

In Re Nazi Era Cases Against German Def. Litig. · filed 2004-06-08(a)(2)

It appears that § 1391(a)(2) is an adequate ground as venue is proper, in diversity jurisdiction actions, 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(a)(2). Plaintiffs argue that promises and misrepresentations — the underlying cause of the dispute here — were made before this Court as to the legal and financial responsibilities of German Industry. As such, venue is proper here.

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

Gross v. German Foundation Industrial Initiative · filed 2004-06-08(a)(2)

It appears that § 1391(a)(2) is an adequate ground as venue is proper, in diversity jurisdiction actions, 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(a)(2). Plaintiffs argue that promises and misrepresentations — the underlying cause of the dispute here — were made before this Court as to the legal and financial responsibilities of German Industry. As such, venue is proper here.

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

Schnabel v. Ramsey Quantitative Systems, Inc. · filed 2004-06-25(a)(2)

As to the first prong, neither party-disputes that both this District and the Western District of Kentucky'would have been a proper forum under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which provides that a case 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(a)(2). ... A substantial part of the events giving rise to this lawsuit took place in both the Western District of Kentucky and the Southern District of New York.

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

Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. · filed 2004-07-26(a)(2)

In this case, the Complaints have sufficiently alleged venue under Section 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to DuPont’s claims occurred in this judicial district.

Section 1391(a) permits venue where a substantial part of the work giving rise to a contract payment claim was performed.

Mitrano v. Christopher J. Hawes, D/B/A Cjh Color and Design Group · filed 2004-07-26(a)

Indeed, it was Mi-trano’s work that allegedly created his entitlement to the payment he now seeks. For that reason, depending on the amount of work that Mitrano completed in the Eastern District, that work alone may be sufficient to justify venue there.

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

Brown v. Money Tree Mortgage, Inc. · filed 2004-08-23(b)(2)

In this case, venue is proper in the District of Kansas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Olathe, Kansas.

Under § 1391(b), California is an improper venue for a suit challenging Pennsylvania officials’ enforcement of Pennsylvania law when the alleged acts occurred or will occur in Pennsylvania, not California.

Dedication & Everlasting Love to Animals v. Pennsylvania, Bureau of Charitable Organizations · filed 2004-06-15(b)

The district court held that, because the acts complained of occurred or will occur in Pennsylvania, but not in California, California was an improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The district court also observed that there is a valid “interest in preventing Pennsylvania officials from being haled into court in any state where a resident’s conduct in Pennsylvania subjects it to possible Pennsylvania enforcement action.” We agree.

Section 1391(a) permits venue in a district where substantial work under a contract gave rise to a payment claim, even if other districts also have substantial connections to the claim.

Mitrano v. Hawes · filed 2004-07-26(a)

Applying these principles here, we conclude that Mitrano’s work under the contract constituted "a substantial part of the events [and] omissions giving rise to [Mitrano’s] claim" for breach of contract.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, considering the entire sequence of underlying events.

Production Group International, Inc. v. Goldman · filed 2004-09-23(a)(2)

Accordingly, a “substantial part” of the events giving rise to plaintiffs claim can be said to have occurred in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Section 1391(b) looks to where the defendant resides and where the events giving rise to the claim occurred, not where the defendant’s clients reside.

Zhu v. Whinery · filed 2004-07-20(b)

Section 1391(b) is concerned with where Whinery resides and where the events giving rise to Zhu’s claim arose, not with where Whinery’s clients reside.

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

Lashcon, Inc. v. Butler · filed 2004-10-07(a)(2)

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Northern District of Illinois is a “judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2). The Central District of Illinois has no such connection.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, without limiting the inquiry to the defendant’s activities.

Official Employment-Related Issues Committee of Enron Corp. v. Arnold (In Re Enron Corp.) · filed 2004-11-15(b)(2)

The court declines to follow Woodke’s reading of § 1391(b) to the extent it focuses on defendant’s activities only.

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

Hanna v. WCI Communities, Inc. · filed 2004-11-18(a)(2)

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the Southern District of Florida.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if more events occurred elsewhere.

Country Home Products, Inc. v. Schiller-Pfeiffer, Inc. · filed 2004-11-19(a)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is proper in any judicial district in which “a substantial part of the events or omission giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property is situated.” ... A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Vermont.

Section 1391(b) does not support venue based on events in a district that are insubstantial to the claims when another district is available.

Gem County Mosquito Abatement District v. Environmental Protection Agency · filed 2005-01-04(b)

Neither of the Private Defendants resides in this district. Further, as to the claims between the Plaintiffs and the Private Defendants, any “part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” that may have occurred in this district are insubstantial at best.

Section 1391(a) permits venue where a substantial part of the events at issue occurred.

Byrd v. Admiral Moving and Storage, Inc. · filed 2005-01-12(a)

Absent a valid forum selection clause, venue would otherwise lie in the District of Columbia, because a “substantial part of the events” at issue occurred here.

In a federal-question case, venue is proper in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Reaves v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2005-02-01(b)

In federal question cases, venue is proper 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). That is the case here, because both the initial primary election and the disputed special election were held in South Carolina, and the decision to change state election procedures was made there.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a contract dispute in a district where the plaintiff performed services under the contract.

Matera v. Native Eyewear, Inc. · filed 2005-02-10(a)(2)

In the Court’s view, as stated above, the fact that the Plaintiffs services were performed within the District is sufficient to establish that venue is also proper under Section 1391(a)(2).

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a contract case where substantial negotiations or performance occurred, including activity before the written contract was signed.

Largotta v. Banner Promotions, Inc. · filed 2005-02-28(a)(2)

Pelullo’s argument that all the prior conduct in New York is immaterial for venue purposes because the contract had not yet been executed is simply wrong; indeed, if this were so, it would be illogical for courts to consider the venue in which negotiations (by definition pre-exe-cution) took place, as courts routinely do. ... The fact that their performance occurred before the formal written contract was entered into is irrelevant, for it was still this performance for which the contract in effect proposed to compensate them. ... Thus, venue is proper in the Southern District of New York.

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

Eliserio v. FLOYDADA HOUSING AUTHORITY · filed 2005-03-28(b)(2)

Venue is proper where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of substandard housing they leased and occupied in Floyd County, located in the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division. Thus, the Lubbock Division qualifies as a venue to which the action may be transferred.

Section 1391 permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where an out-of-state defendant’s website allegedly infringes a local trademark holder’s rights.

Audi AG and Volkswagon of America, Inc. v. D'Amato · filed 2004-10-19(b)(2)

28 U.S.C. § 1391 states that venue is proper in any district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. As stated above, the Court finds that when an out-of-state defendant allegedly operates a website that infringes on the rights of a Michigan trademark holder, it is sufficient for venue in Michigan.

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

Sheldon v. National RR Passenger Corp. · filed 2005-01-04(a)(2)

Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), since the Plaintiffs’ claims arise from a train crash which occurred in the Middle District of Florida.

Section 1391(b) permits venue for a claim not based solely on diversity in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Xcaliber International Ltd. v. Ieyoub · filed 2005-02-04(b)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides that if federal subject matter jurisdiction is not based solely on diversity, venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” ... The court finds that because a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiffs claim occurred in this district, venue is proper. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue is denied.

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

Endless Pools, Inc. v. Wave Tec Pools, Inc. · filed 2005-03-16(b)(2)

The Court concludes that venue is proper pursuant to § 1391(b)(2). Under § 1391(b)(2), the test for determining venue is “the location of those events or omissions giving rise to the claim.” ... As the discussion above on personal jurisdiction demonstrates, a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiffs causes of action occurred in 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.

Ross v. Alegent Health · filed 2005-07-13(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Southern District of Iowa under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.

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

Vig v. Indianapolis Life Insurance · filed 2005-07-19(a)(2), (b)(2)

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) and/or (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.” Defendants argue that the “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise” to plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Pennsylvania and California, and that little of any substance occurred in Mississippi; yet that plainly is not the case. Accordingly, venue is proper here.

Venue is proper in any district where significant events or omissions material to the claim occurred, even if other material events occurred elsewhere.

Gulf Insurance Company v. David Glasbrenner and Susan Glasbrenner, the Caldor Corporation F/k/a Caldor, Inc., Docket No. · filed 2005-08-02(b)(2)

That means for venue to be proper, significant events or omissions material to the plaintiffs claim must have occurred in the district in question, even if other material events occurred elsewhere.

Section 1391(b)(2) places venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, with the court focusing on the defendant’s activities.

Conmaco/Rector, L.P. v. Deco Companies, Inc. (In Re Conmaco/Rector, L.P.) · filed 2005-08-09(b)(2)

Venue in nonbankruptcy cases is determined by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Generally, in determining where a substantial portion of events occurred, the court focuses on the activities of the defendant, and not of the plaintiff. ... The events related to this suit involve a crane located at Conmaco’s office in Kansas, and which was damaged in that forum. For the reasons expressed, this court finds that venue is not proper in Louisiana.

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

Anaya v. South-West District of the Bible Missionary Church, Inc. · filed 2005-09-15(a)(2), (b)(2)

According to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, in a civil action based either on diversity or federal question jurisdiction (see Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory judgment), venue is proper 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(a)(2) and 1391(b)(2). ... Because the causes of action set forth in Plaintiffs’ complaint arose in part in the Eastern District of Texas, venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in more than one district when a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in each.

Weinberger v. Tucker · filed 2005-09-29(a)(2)

Civil actions where jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may be brought in any judicial district in which a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2). ... Accordingly, the contacts with Virginia sustaining the exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant also support the laying of venue there.

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

Dale v. First American National Bank · filed 2005-09-30(a)(2)

Venue is undeniably proper in Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” occurred in the Middle District of Tennessee.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires events in the chosen district to have a close connection to the claims to count as a substantial part of the events giving rise to them.

Daniel v. American Board of Emergency Medicine · filed 2005-10-07(b)(2)

When material acts or omissions within the forum bear a close nexus to the claims, they are properly deemed “significant” and, thus, substantial, but when a close nexus is lacking, so too is the substantiality necessary to support venue.

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

Kotan v. Pizza Outlet, Inc. · filed 2005-10-28(a)(2)

Given that Kotan reached out to the franchisors, both Pennsylvania corporations, seeking to enter a contractual relationship with them, and signed a franchise agreement to that effect, venue in the Western District of Pennsylvania is proper as that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) (1993).

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

McAninch v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 2005-11-08(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Southern District of Iowa under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.

Section 1391(a) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if most events occurred elsewhere.

Piedmont Hawthorne Aviation, Inc. v. TriTech Environmental Health & Safety, Inc. · filed 2005-11-22(a)

Accordingly, the Court finds that a substantial portion of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claim, that is, Defendant’s attempts to expand the contract into North Carolina and Plaintiffs repudiation of the contract, occurred within the Middle District of North Carolina, and therefore venue would be proper in the Middle District of North Carolina.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, even if another district also qualifies.

Silver Valley Partners, LLC v. De Motte · filed 2005-11-28(a)(2)

Western Washington also qualifies as a proper forum under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Western Washington. The events must be substantial, have a nexus with the claims alleged, and reflect defendants’ activities, not those of plaintiffs.

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

Spiegelberg v. Collegiate Licensing Co. · filed 2005-11-30(a)(2)

Venue is therefore proper in the Lubbock Division of the Northern District of Texas as a “judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.”