28 U.S.C. § 1391

Section 1391(a)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim to occur in the district; general contacts with the district do not suffice.

Bockman v. First American Marketing Corp · filed 2012-01-23(a)(2)

Instead, it describes the Corporations‟ general contacts with Pennsylvania in 2005 – information that does not alone suffice for the analysis of venue required by § 1391(a)(2).

A district is a proper venue when a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there, including the conduct of employees who carried out the challenged action.

Fteja v. Facebook, Inc. · filed 2012-01-24(a)(2)

The Northern District of California would be a proper venue for this action. ... The Northern District of California would be such a district in this action because the nub of Fteja’s claim is that Facebook wrongfully disabled his account and the employees responsible for disabling accounts work at Facebook’s headquarters in Palo Alto, California which is in the Northern District of California.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying a claim occurred, even if most occurred elsewhere.

Caldera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Los Alamos National Security, LLC · filed 2012-01-26(b)(2)

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

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

Mullen v. Bureau of Prisons · filed 2012-02-21(b)(2)

Under the applicable venue statute, the Bivens claim is properly brought in the judicial district where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The claim arose from decisions made at USP Canaan and FCI Allenwood, both of which are in Pennsylvania. Therefore, the court will grant defendants’ uncontested motion to dismiss the Bivens claim also on the ground of improper venue.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, even when a venue challenge was not preserved.

Hango v. Atkinson · filed 2012-03-09(b)(2)

Further, even if Hango had preserved his venue challenge, we would find that venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because “a substantial part of the events or omissions” giving rise to Hango’s claims occurred at John F. Kennedy Airport, located within the Eastern District of New York.

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

Szulik v. Tag Virgin Islands, Inc. · filed 2012-03-12(b)(2)

Under section 1391(b)(2), venue may be proper in more than one jurisdiction. ... Thus, substantial acts and omissions giving rise to the Szuliks’ complaint occurred in the Eastern District of North Carolina, making this district a proper venue as to the TAG defendants.

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

American University System, Inc. v. American University · filed 2012-03-13(b)(2)

Further, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim did not occur in Texas.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred; medical expenses incurred elsewhere are damages, not events giving rise to the claim.

Whiting v. Hogan · filed 2012-02-28(b)(2)

Although the Plaintiffs assert — in their Mayflower Response, Clark Response, and Hogan Response— that they incurred medical expenses in New Mexico, medical expenses are the damages suffered and do not constitute a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the central claim occurred; judicial economy may favor hearing related claims there as well.

Smithfield Packing Co. v. V. Suarez & Co. · filed 2012-03-14(b)(2)

The Court concludes that the issue of ownership is at the core of this action. Because this Court is a proper venue to hear the central claim of this action, judicial economy mandates hearing Smith-field’s entire action in this Court instead of severing the ancillary trademark infringement claims from the declaratory judgment claim.

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

Old Carco Motors LLC v. Suthers (In Re Old Carco LLC) · filed 2012-03-15(b)(2)

Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. Specifically, the Purchase Agreement was entered and approved in this district and the Bankruptcy Court retained jurisdiction over all matters relating to the Sale Order and Rejection Order.

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

Florea v. Bocra · filed 2012-04-05(a)(2)

Initially, original venue in Puerto Rico is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), since a substantial number of the alleged events giving rise to the claim occurred in Puerto Rico.

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

TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Technopark Co. · filed 2012-04-09(a) and (b)

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and (b), and 28 U.S.C. § 1400, because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district, ... and Technopark is subject to personal jurisdiction 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 or a substantial part of the property at issue is located.

Food Team International, Ltd. v. Unilink, LLC · filed 2012-05-18(b)(2)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiffs claims occurred within this district and because a substantial part of the property which is the subject of this action is located 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.

Scurlock v. Lappins · filed 2012-06-28(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 . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). In this case, venue is proper in the Western District of Virginia because defendants engaged in the conduct that led to plaintiff’s alleged injury in that district.

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

Sanderson v. Horse Cave Theatre 76 · filed 2012-07-26(b)(2)

While the determination to terminate Sanderson’s employment, a significant event material to the breach of contract claim, was made in Kentucky, the civil venue statute permits venue in this district as long as a substantial part of the underlying events took place in this district.

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

In re Groupon Derivative Litigation · filed 2012-07-31(b)(2)

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

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

MNW, LLC v. Mega Auto Group, Inc. · filed 2012-08-01(a)(2)

Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the parties’ claims occurred in the Northern District of Indiana.

Section 1391 permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including contractual performance and payment due in the district.

Mendelsohn, Drucker & Associates v. Titan Atlas Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2012-08-02(b)(2)

This Court is a proper venue for this case under the second and third options of Section 1391. As discussed above, Mendelsohn performed a substantial part of its contractual duties in Pennsylvania and the missing payment for that work was due 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.

Fiore v. Walden · filed 2012-08-08(b)(2)

Taking all these events together, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in Nevada. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Venue is proper in the District of Nevada.

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

Hoover v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. · filed 2012-08-24(b)(2)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiffs claims allegedly occurred in Strasburg, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, which is located in this judicial district.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a diversity case where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including economic injury felt in the forum.

Samson Tug & Barge Co. v. Koziol · filed 2012-04-23(a)(2)

This court finds that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Samson’s claim occurred in Alaska. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss on the basis of improper venue is denied.

Section 1391 does not permit venue in Minnesota when no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there and the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction there.

Jacobs Trading, LLC v. Ningbo Hicon International Industry Co. · filed 2012-05-30

For the reasons discussed above, the Court agrees that Hicon is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Minnesota and that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in this case did not occur in Minnesota.

Section 1391(b)(2) places venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; receiving a termination letter elsewhere did not establish venue for this employment claim.

Ashbourne v. US Department of the Treasury · filed 2012-07-12(b)(2)

Venue under § 1391(b) is established where substantial activity giving rise to the claim took place. ... While Plaintiff may have received her final termination letter at her home in Maryland, the substantial portion of her claims arose within the District of Columbia while employed at GHW. Therefore, the District Court for the District of Columbia is the only proper venue for Plaintiff’s first claim.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue in a district with a substantial connection to the claims, even if other districts have greater contacts.

International Paper Co. v. Goldschmidt · filed 2012-05-25(a)(2)

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Southern District of Ohio has a substantial connection to IPC claims, and, therefore, venue is proper in this district. Accordingly, Goldschmidt’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue is DENIED.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Marmolejos v. United States · filed 2012-06-12(e)(1)(B)

Venue is also proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B) because the alleged injury resulting from the defendants’ negligence took place in the District of Puerto Rico.

Section 1391 permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; in an internet trademark case, targeted marketing or sales in the district can support venue.

Mrs. United States National Pageant, Inc. v. Miss United States of America Organization, LLC · filed 2012-07-13(b)(2)

I conclude, however, that venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), which states, in relevant part, that venue is proper in "a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” ... Based on my findings as to personal jurisdiction, then, I also conclude that 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 claims occurred.

Medline Industries, Inc. v. Ram Medical, Inc. · filed 2012-08-30(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events that gave rise to Medline’s claims occurred within this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for an action to compel arbitration in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to that action occurred.

CPR—Cell Phone Repair Franchise Systems, Inc. v. Nayrami · filed 2012-09-13(b)(2)

The Court concludes there are sufficient underlying events associated with this district to establish venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The Franchise Agreement was sent from a Georgia company in Georgia, signed by Nayrami, then returned to Georgia. The agreement included a provision calling for arbitration in Georgia.

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

Hobbs v. Cappelluti · filed 2012-09-28(b)(2)

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

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

Jackson v. Dow Chemical Co. · filed 2012-09-28(b)(2)

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

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

Askew v. R.L. Reppert, Inc. · filed 2012-09-28(b)(2)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in Emmaus, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania and Berwyn, Chester County, Pennsylvania, which are each within this judicial district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events underlying a claim occurred, considering the full sequence of events.

Pacific Maritime Association v. National Labor Relations Board · filed 2012-11-20(b)(2)

For venue purposes, a civil action may be brought, inter alia, 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). ... Since the sequence of events underlying the plaintiff’s claim took place almost exclusively in Oregon, this action “might have been brought” there.

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

DiBartolo v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2012-12-21(b)

Finally, venue is proper because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” occurred in this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). DiBartolo was prescribed Humira here, underwent treatment here, and suffered the alleged harm here.

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

Berrey v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America · filed 2013-01-09(a)(2)

Venue is proper in this judicial district because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred here.

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.

Emerald Asset Advisors, LLC v. Schaffer · filed 2012-09-06(a)(2)

In any event, venue in this district is proper because this is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.”

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred, even when an arbitration agreement selects a forum in another district.

STS Refills, LLC v. Rivers Printing Solutions, Inc. · filed 2012-09-13(a)(2)

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

Zielinski v. Whitehall Manor, Inc. · filed 2012-09-28(b)(2)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiffs claims allegedly occurred in Whitehall, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, which is located in this judicial district.

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.

Celestial Community Development Corp. v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2012-09-28(b)(2)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the events giving rise to plaintiffs claim allegedly occurred, and a substantial part of property that is the subject of this action is situated, in this judicial district.

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

Suber v. Guinta · filed 2012-09-28(b)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims allegedly occurred in the City of Coatesville, Chester County, Pennsylvania, which is located within this judicial 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, even if another district has a closer connection to the claim.

Steen v. Murray · filed 2013-01-15(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue in the Southern District of Iowa will be proper even if another district has a closer connection to the claims in this lawsuit because § 1391(b)(2) only requires that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims in this lawsuit occurred in this District.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial omission occurred, including a failure to perform a contract in that district.

Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. v. Lauer Ltd. · filed 2013-01-16(b)(2)

Finally, 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b) specifically provides that venue is proper not only where a substantial part of the “events” occurred but also where a substantial part of the “omissions” occurred. It seems clear to this Court that relevant omissions would include a failure to perform within a forum under the terms of a valid contract, such as occurred here. It also seems clear that, in a breach of contract cause of action, a failure to perform is as substantial an omission as can be made.

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

Douglas v. Chariots for Hire · filed 2013-01-24(b)(2)

In Section III.A, supra, the Court found that Plaintiff’s engagements in the District of Columbia and Defendants’ regular performance of transportation services here constituted a “substantial event” for purposes of 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.

Composite Technologies, L.L.C. v. Inoplast Composites SA DE CV · filed 2013-02-26(b)(2)

Here, the location of Plaintiffs principal place of business, the location of where the goods ordered by Defendant were manufactured, and where the alleged damages were incurred by Plaintiff are all within the Southern District of Ohio; therefore, it is clear that a substantial part of the events or omissions give rise to the claims occurred within the Southern District of Ohio as required by the statute.

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

Rondeno v. Law Office of William S. Vincent · filed 2013-03-13(b)(2)

Because the injuries occurred at the Nashville Street wharf in New Orleans, the action in the Eastern District of Louisiana was filed in a judicial district of proper venue.

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

Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners · filed 2013-03-29(b)(2)

The underlying debt collection law suit was filed in the Santa Clara Superior Court, within the Northern District, and that is the forum where a “substantial part of' the events” giving rise to Pavao’s claims arose.

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

Willis v. Chase Home Finance · filed 2013-04-10(b)(2)

Finally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred[.]” Here, there is no dispute that the alleged negligence and injury occurred at a dialysis center located in Arlington, Virginia, which is located in the Eastern District of Virginia.

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

Sarah’s Hat Boxes v Patch Me Up · filed 2013-04-12(b)(2)

For the same reasons I conclude that there is specific personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants based on their contact with New Hampshire, I also find that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to SHB’s claim occurred in New Hampshire. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Johnson v. Deloitte Services, LLP · filed 2013-04-15(b)

And because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” occurred in McLean, Virginia, the Eastern District of Virginia is also an appropriate venue for the claims that arise under the Family Medical Leave Act pursuant to the general venue statute.

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

Kuennen v. Stryker Corporation · filed 2013-04-19(b)(2)

In reaching this conclusion, the Court notes that this action could have been brought in the Western District of Virginia, since a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Virginia, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and defendants would be subject to personal jurisdiction there.

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

Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Department of the Interior · filed 2013-01-29(b)(2)

This action “might have been brought” in the Eastern District of California both because the land in question, i.e., the “property that is the subject of the action,” is located in that district, and also because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that district, such as the public hearings underlying the fee-to-trust decision and the assessments made regarding the local environmental impacts of the development.

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where the events underlying the claims occurred.

Houston v. Township of Randolph · filed 2013-03-21(b)(2)

Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events underlying Houston’s claims occurred in New Jersey.

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

New Jersey v. RRI Energy Mid-Atlantic Power Holdings, LLC · filed 2013-03-28(b)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims allegedly occurred in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, which is located within this judicial district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of a continuing tort occurred in the district, even if most of the tort occurred elsewhere.

Martensen v. Koch · filed 2013-04-30(b)(2)

Defendant argues that venue is improper in this District because the part of the false imprisonment that occurred in California does not constitute a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim.” The Court disagrees. Defendant cites no similar case where the cause of action itself occurred within the forum yet the forum was improper under Section 1391.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim to occur in the district where the action is brought.

Bullock v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2013-05-06(b)(2)

Under subsection (b)(2), Bullock has not met his burden of alleging that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” took place in the District of Columbia.

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

Wade v. Miller · filed 2013-05-09(b)(2)

In this case, it appears that a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in the District of Columbia. Plaintiff repeatedly references actions which occurred in the District of Columbia and the complaint expressly alleges that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in the District of Columbia. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

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

Randle v. Alexander · filed 2013-05-30(b)(2)

Moreover, Defendants cannot seriously contend that a “substantial part” of the events giving rise to the claim did not occur in the Southern District, as the forced fight — from which all of Randle’s claims in some form or another derive— occurred at Green Haven, in the Southern District.

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

Redhawk Global, LLC v. World Projects International · filed 2013-06-14(b)

Given that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the present claim are claimed to have occurred in the Southern District of Ohio, this Court finds that the Intervenor Plaintiff properly filed his complaint in the Southern District of Ohio.

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

Zaltz v. JDATE · filed 2013-07-08(b)(2)

Venue in this District would therefore be proper under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires substantial events or omissions in a district to support venue; vague meetings and misrepresentations peripheral to the claims do not qualify.

Al-Ghena International Corp. v. Radwan · filed 2013-07-16(b)(2)

The vaguely-described meetings and misrepresentations that allegedly occurred in New Jersey are not particularly germane to the Plaintiffs’ claims and therefore do not constitute “substantial events or omissions.”

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

Abou-Hussein v. Mabus · filed 2013-07-17(b)(2)

Venue in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 based on the allegations in the complaint because that court is “a judicial district in which 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 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Ameristone Tile, LLC v. Ceramic Consulting Corp. · filed 2013-08-19(b)(2)

From these facts, the Court is satisfied that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Ameristone’s claim occurred in South Carolina.

Section 1391(e) permits a suit against federal officers or agencies to be brought in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Western Watersheds Project v. Pool · filed 2013-04-30(e)(1)(B)

When federal jurisdiction is not premised solely on diversity and a defendant is an officer, employee, or agency of the United States, venue is proper in any judicial district in which “(A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). Here, federal question jurisdiction exists because the issue at controversy arises under federal law. Hence, venue would be proper in the District of Utah because the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Utah.

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

Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Custom Nutrition Laboratories, LLC · filed 2013-05-20(b)(2)

Here, a “substantial part” of the events giving rise to the claim — i.e., the sale of thousands of bottles of various energy shots, purportedly containing an ingredient Defendant promised not to use — are alleged to have occurred in the Eastern District of Michigan. As such, venue is proper, and the motion to dismiss for improper venue is denied.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not permit venue in a district where none of the events giving rise to the claim occurred and no substantial part of the property at issue is located.

Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washington · filed 2013-05-28(b)(2)

It is undisputed that none of the events giving rise to this action occurred within the District of Oregon.

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

Dennis v. DeJong · filed 2013-06-14(b)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to plaintiffs claims allegedly occurred within Delaware County, Pennsylvania, which is located within this judicial district.

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

Rice v. Petedge, Inc. · filed 2013-09-25(b)(2)

As defendant provides no rebuttal evidence, the Court finds that venue is proper in this district under § 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.

Blackhawk Consulting, LLC v. Federal National Mortgage Association · filed 2013-09-30(b)(2)

Further, as required under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), a “substantial part of the events or omission giving rise to the claim occurred” in Dallas.

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

American Action Network, Inc. v. Cater America, LLC · filed 2013-09-30(b)(2)

Because they did, venue is proper here under section 1391(b)(2).

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

Mack v. Yost · filed 2013-10-24(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial portion of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in 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.

Osgood v. Discount Auto Parts, LLC · filed 2013-11-01(b)(2)

An 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)(2). Here, Plaintiffs accident occurred in Lake City, which is located in the Middle District of Florida. Thus, this case could have been brought there in the first instance.

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

Zurich American Insurance v. Tejas Concrete & Materials Inc. · filed 2013-11-06(b)(2)

However, that three of the nine construction projections were located in the Western District of Texas is sufficient to satisfy the “substantiality” requirement of § 1391(b)(2).

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

Weitz Co. v. Lexington Insurance · filed 2013-11-13(a)(2)

Venue is proper in the Southern District of Iowa under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred therein.

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

Santos v. Trustees of Grinnell College · filed 2013-11-25(b)(2)

Furthermore, this case could have been brought 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). Here, the crux of this lawsuit lies in Grinnell’s alleged failure to adequately accommodate Ms. Santos’s medical condition while she was a residential student of Grinnell on its Iowa campus. Accordingly, most, if not all, developments relevant to this suit took place in Iowa.

Section 1391(a)(2) requires events giving rise to a claim to occur in the chosen judicial district; events elsewhere in the same state do not establish venue there.

Nuttall v. Juarez · filed 2013-11-26(a)(2)

It is not sufficient for venue purposes, however, that an act of infringement may have occurred in this state. Rather, Plaintiff must establish that an act of infringement occurred in this judicial district.

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

Cofield v. Corizon, Inc. · filed 2013-12-12(e)

In this case, because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s]” allegedly occurred in Baltimore and Baltimore County, Maryland, this complaint originally could have been brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Section 1391(b)(2) allows venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred; a speaker’s residence and physical location do not alone defeat venue when alleged defamatory statements were directed into the district.

Intercon Solutions, Inc. v. Basel Action Network · filed 2013-08-28(b)(2)

Here, in light of Intercon’s allegations that Puckett’s defamatory statements were directed to Intercon in Illinois, Defendants’ allegations regarding Puckett’s residency and physical location when the statements were made are insufficient to state a plausible claim to relief for improper venue. Accordingly, Intercon’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Affirmative Defense is granted.

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

Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washington · filed 2013-11-25(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue is only proper if “a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim” occurred within this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). It is undisputed that none of the events giving rise to this action occurred within the District of Oregon.

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

Hartford Casualty Insurance v. Sany America, Inc. · filed 2014-01-08(b)(2)

Because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ declaratory-judgment claim occurred in this district, venue is proper, and SANY’s motion will be denied.

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

Zanghi v. Freightcar America, Inc. · filed 2014-01-14(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 Johns-town, Pennsylvania.

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

Monastiero v. Appmobi, Inc. · filed 2014-02-06(b)(2)

The Court finds that venue is proper in the Northern District of California because that is where a substantial part of the events 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; the location of the bank that originated the funds does not establish venue for alleged fraud committed elsewhere.

United States ex rel. Doe v. Taconic Hills Central School District · filed 2014-03-25(b)(2)

Since all events giving rise to Relators’ claims against the Upstate Defendants occurred in the Northern District of New York, venue is only proper in that district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; here, the relevant events were the bank’s actions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Story v. Republic Bank · filed 2014-04-01(b)(2)

Even assuming these allegations are true, we find the activity relevant to the litigation that occurred in Pittsburgh does not rise to the level of being “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim.” It is not the conduct of Ms. Story which gives rise to the claims in this litigation; it is Defendant’s conduct and its actions all occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where the underlying transactions giving rise to the dispute took place.

Milan Express Co. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co. · filed 2014-01-23(b)(2)

Under § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper here in the Western District of Tennessee because Madison County, Tennessee, which is in this district, is where most of the underlying transactions took place.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim to occur in the chosen district; two isolated online sales into the district do not suffice.

Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. v. Bivins · filed 2014-02-19(b)(2)

Since the plaintiff, after jurisdictional discovery, has failed to uncover evidence sufficient to show that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim occurred in this district, the plaintiff has failed to show that venue is proper in the District of Columbia under any of the prongs of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where events giving rise to a claim have a substantial connection to the district, even if another district also has substantial connections.

Reilly v. Meffe · filed 2014-03-19(b)(2)

All of the profits accrued during the course of the alleged partnership were a result of buying and selling oil and gas rights in Ohio, predominantly in counties within the Southern District of Ohio. In the Court’s view, these events establish a substantial connection between the Southern District of Ohio and the Plaintiffs claims.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred; the location of the plaintiff’s harm is a factor, but does not alone establish venue.

Fedele v. Harris · filed 2014-05-09(b)(2)

In this case, although the Court considers the situs of the alleged harm as a factor in its venue analysis, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not shown that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to their claims occurred in the Eastern District. All the allegations which form the basis of the Plaintiffs complaint occurred at the DTF’s office in Albany.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, despite the defendant’s later move.

Caner v. Autry · filed 2014-05-14(b)(2)

Despite Defendant’s move, I find proper venue in this district, as it is the one "in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” and since the two parties do not live in the same state.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; conclusory assertions do not establish that connection.

Cofield v. Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield · filed 2014-06-19(b)(2)

Under the circumstances presented here, venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . .” Id., § 1391(b)(2); ... Defendants counter that venue would not be proper in California because (1) Anthem-VA is not a resident of California, (2) plaintiff’s assertions as to where the events occurred are “wholl y conclusory,” and (3) the complaint’s allegations do not establish “a substantial connection to California.” (Defs.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to Transfer, ECF No. 8, at 2-3.) The Court agrees with those reasons and finds that the interest of justice would not be served by transferring this case to the Central District of California or any other judicial district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a considerable portion of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, even if other events occurred elsewhere.

Maysaroh v. American Arab Communications & Translations Center, LLC · filed 2014-06-25(b)(2)

This section does not require a plaintiff to bring suit in a district where every event that supports an element of the claim occurred; rather, it merely requires a plaintiff to show that some considerable portion of the events occurred in their chosen forum.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; attending board meetings in a district alone did not establish venue for claims centered on events elsewhere.

Delaware Professional Insurance v. Hajjar · filed 2014-07-11(b)(2)

While Hajjar was a director of DelPro and Sovereign, Hajjar admits that he rarely attended board meetings in Delaware (D.I. 7 at 4), and these meetings alone are insufficient to establish proper venue under § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim to have occurred in the district where suit is filed.

Blauschild ex rel. Kookbox Surfboards, Inc. v. Tudor · filed 2014-07-21(b)(2)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that venue is improper here since the significant events pertinent to Plaintiffs claims herein took place in California, not New York. Rather, it appears that Plaintiffs sole basis for filing suit in New York is his residency, which is not enough to support venue here.

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

Perlmutter v. Varone · filed 2014-07-22(b)(2)

Only a few pages of the complaint even touch upon events alleged to have occurred in the District of Columbia, and these allegations do not constitute the “substantial part” of plaintiffs’ claims needed to establish venue under 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.

Perlmutter v. Varone · filed 2014-08-06(b)(2)

Under these circumstances, the Court could not conclude that a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to” plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the District of Columbia, and so venue was improper in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires significant events or omissions material to the claim to have occurred in the district for venue to be proper there.

Fisher v. International Student Exchange, Inc. · filed 2014-08-07(b)(2)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that venue is improper here since the significant events pertinent to Plaintiffs claims herein took place in Montana, not New York.

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

Bader v. Air Line Pilots Association, International · filed 2014-08-08(b)(2)

Venue is also proper because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Northern District of Illinois, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Plaintiffs concede that ALPA conducted meetings regarding the UPA and LOA within the Northern District of Illinois and that “some records are stored” there.

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

Farmer v. D & O Contractors, Inc. · filed 2014-08-22(b)(2)

Plaintiffs do not allege that any other racketeering activity took place in Mississippi; thus, it appears that a substantial part of the events giving rise to this lawsuit took place within the Eastern District of Louisiana such that this case could have been filed in that court.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue for a proposed class action in a district where none of the alleged calls to the named plaintiff were made or received; possible claims of unnamed class members do not change that determination.

Johnson v. Law · filed 2014-05-14(b)(2)

Under this subpart, venue is proper in this District if “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” here. As discussed above, there is no dispute that none of the alleged improper calls to Johnson were made from or received in this District, and the claims of possible other class members are irrelevant to the venue determination.

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

State Auto Insurance Companies v. Whirlpool Corp. · filed 2014-10-15(b)(2)

Because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to State Auto’s claim occurred in this district, the court agrees that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where challenged regulations were drafted.

Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell · filed 2014-11-17(e)(1)

Under the general federal venue statute, venue is proper in any judicial district where (1) “a defendant in the action resides;” (2) “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is subject of the action is situated;” or (3) a “plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). The Parties do not dispute that this action “might have been brought” in the Northern District of Oklahoma as a substantial part of the events giving rising to this legal action occurred there, including the drafting of the challenged regulations.

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

Prou v. Giarla · filed 2014-11-26(b)(2)

In doing so, Plaintiff satisfies the statutory requirement that a civil action may be brought in a venue 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 the claim occurred, even if more of those events occurred elsewhere.

Associated Producers, Ltd. v. Vanderbilt University · filed 2014-12-23(b)(2)

However, the Court finds that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the District of Columbia and “[n]othing in section 1391(b)(2) mandates that a plaintiff bring suit in the district where the most substantial portion of the relevant events occurred . . . .” Modaressi v. Vedadi, 441 F.Supp. 2d 51, 57 (D.D.C. 2006) (emphasis in original).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where an agreement was made and the plaintiff performed her work.

Williams v. Preeminent Protective Services, Inc. · filed 2015-01-29(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... She has therefore established that this District is a proper venue for this action to the extent necessary to defeat defendants’ motion to dismiss.

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

Armstrong v. Archuleta · filed 2014-12-30(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (stating that venue is proper in “any judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires courts to focus on the defendant’s relevant activities in the forum state when deciding where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred.

Richard "Bud" Steen v. Murray · filed 2014-10-21(b)(2)

But the court’s focus must be on relevant activities of the defendant in the forum state, not on the effect of those activities on the plaintiff in the forum state.

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

Delorenzo v. HP Enterprise Services, LLC · filed 2015-02-11(b)(2)

Further, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the District of Columbia offers a proper venue because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the [action] occurred” in the district.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim to occur in the district; economic harm felt there alone is insufficient.

Allstate Life Insurance v. Stanley W. Burns, Inc. · filed 2015-02-23(b)(2)

A plaintiffs economic harm felt in the original forum is not sufficient for a finding of proper venue 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 claim occurred.

AEI Life, LLC v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co. · filed 2015-02-24(b)(2)

The balance of convenience test demonstrates that the locus of substantial events or omissions related to this claim is in New York. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is an appropriate venue in which to bring this action.

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

Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. United States Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement · filed 2015-03-02(e)(1)(B)

Venue in this court is proper, because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Petitioners’ claims occurred in OSM’s Western Region offices located in Denver, Colorado. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).

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

Bank Leumi USA v. Ehrlich · filed 2015-03-23(b)(2)

The Second Circuit has recognized that the civil venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, permits for venue in multiple jurisdictions so long as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district. ... The undisputed facts make clear that a substantial number of events relating to the case did in fact occur in New York: the Accounts at issue were opened in New York, the trades at issue were executed on New York exchanges by New York-based traders, and the contract in dispute identified New York law as governing the agreement. ... Accordingly, the Southern District of New York is an appropriate venue for this action.

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

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Emerson · filed 2015-03-24(b)(2)

Here, the Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (“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 . . . .”) In addition, “a court should satisfy itself that it has personal jurisdiction before entering judgment against an absent defendant.” Mwani, 417 F.3d at 6.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim would occur.

Texas v. United States · filed 2015-03-26(e)(1)(B)

Because Plaintiff Texas and its agencies are employers in Wichita Falls, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims would occur in the Northern District of Texas were the Final Rule to become effective. Therefore, venue is proper in this district.

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

Johnston v. University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education · filed 2015-03-31(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 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 located.

TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Adams · filed 2015-04-09(b)(2)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1891(a) and (b), because a substantial part of the events and property that are the subject of the action are located within the Southern District of Florida, and the impact of Adams’ conduct occurred in this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(b).

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

Hertan v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America · filed 2015-06-09(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred within the Central District of California.

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

Smith v. Brennan · filed 2015-07-13(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue when a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred in the district; those events need not be a majority.

Johnson v. Creighton University · filed 2015-07-14(b)(2)

In sum, § 1391(b)(2) requires that a substantial part—not the majority—of the ... events giving rise to the claim must occur in the district at issue.

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

Mason v. Range Resources-Appalachia LLC · filed 2015-07-27(b)(2)

Venue is proper because a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where contract negotiations, execution, partial performance, and an alleged breach amount to a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

Ferratex, Inc. v. U.S. Sewer & Drain, Inc. · filed 2015-08-04(b)(2)

As contractual negotiations, contract execution, partial performance, and alleged breach appear to have occurred in New Jersey, this Court is persuaded that a substantial portion of the events or omissions giving rise to the instant action occurred in this District. The Court therefore finds that venue in New Jersey is proper pursuant to § 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.

Covertech Fabricating, Inc. v. TVM Building Products, Inc. · filed 2015-08-14(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because TVM is subject to personal jurisdiction here under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims arose in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

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

Maiden Creek Associates, L.P. v. United States Department of Transportation · filed 2015-08-20

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where communications directed to the district are sufficiently related to the claim to constitute events giving rise to it.

Enright v. Asclepius Panacea, LLC Asclepius Panacea GP, LLC Daily Pharmacy, LLC Daily Pharmacy GP, LLC And Toth Ent · filed 2015-08-24(b)(2)

The direction of fraudulent misrepresentations to Dallas, Texas can establish that the events or omissions giving rise to the cause of action occurred in Dallas, Texas.

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

Freedman v. Suntrust Banks, Inc. · filed 2015-09-21(b)(2)

A “substantial part of the events” giving rise to the claims in this action did not occur in the District of Columbia 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.

Ward v. Stewart · filed 2015-09-29(b)(2)

Taking the second element of this inquiry first, the relevant statute provides that venue in a civil action may be laid 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). Here, the facts alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint concern events that occurred over the span of a few minutes in Canandaigua, New York. Because Canan-daigua, which is located in Ontario County, is in turn situated within the confines of the proposed transferee forum, venue would properly lie there.

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

Mishaga v. Schmitz · filed 2015-09-30(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this Court because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Mishaga’s claims occurred in the Central District of Illinois.

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

Frickey v. Thompson · filed 2015-09-30(b)(2)

Because a substantial part of the events givirig rise to plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Kansas, venue is proper here.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a RICO action where a substantial part of the events or property at issue is in the district.

Brown v. Access Midstream Partners, L.P. · filed 2015-09-30(b)

In considering defendant Dell’Osso’s argument, the RICO venue provision is not exclusive, but rather supplements the general venue provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which provides, in relevant part, that venue is proper in any “judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated?’ In this case, all of the lessor class members are located in Pennsylvania, the properties at issue and from which the claims arise are located here, and the relevant gas gathering and transportation services are provided in Pennsylvania. As such, the court finds that venue is properly situated in Pennsylvania under the general venue statute.

Venue is proper in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Weintraub ex rel. Weintraub v. Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc. · filed 2015-10-26(b)(2)

Accordingly, the Court finds that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred at the DCDC such that the case could have originally been brought in the Western District of Kentucky.

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

Roland v. Branch Banking & Trust Corporation · filed 2015-12-14(b)(2)

The property that is central to this case is located in Maryland, and many of the other events giving rise to Mr. Roland’s claims, including the foreclosure proceeding, took place in Maryland, which, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), makes the District of Maryland a proper venue for Mr. Roland’s claims.

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events occurred.

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC v. Ahmad · filed 2015-12-17(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events occurred 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.

Mitchell v. Eli Lilly & Co. · filed 2016-01-29(b)(2)

Venue would also be proper in the Northern District of Florida because, as just explained, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a considerable portion of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if other relevant events occurred elsewhere.

Hampton v. Comey · filed 2016-02-08(b)(2)

Section 1391(b)(2) does not require a plaintiff to bring suit in a district where every event that supports an element of the claim occurred; rather, it merely requires a plaintiff to show that some considerable portion of the events occurred in his chosen forum.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred; claims in the same case may have different proper venues.

Get in Shape Franchise, Inc. v. TFL Fishers, LLC · filed 2016-03-09(b)(2)

Under this approach, venue for GISFW’s trademark infringement claims is only proper in Indiana. ... Taking a holistic view of the substantial acts and omissions underlying the dispute between the parties, I conclude that the breach of the franchise agreement is at the center of the dispute. Accordingly, I conclude that venue is proper in this District for purposes of the breach of contract claims and the request for a preliminary injunction.

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

Hall v. L-3 Communications Corp. · filed 2016-03-15(b)(2)

Additionally, Plaintiffs’ service with the Washington Air National Guard occurs within the Eastern District of Washington and is a substantial part of their USERRA claims. Accordingly, the Court finds venue in the Eastern District of Washington is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial connection between the district and the events giving rise to the claim; a disputed mailed form and other minor contacts do not suffice.

Dutch Valley Growers, Inc. v. Rietveld · filed 2016-03-15(b)(2)

That makes the defendants’ contact with the Northern District of Illinois — one disputed mail order form, an email from an attorney, and a couple of IT people making a drive to Bourbonnais from Wheaton — minuscule as well and, in any event, certainly not substantial for the purposes of 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.

Cherox Inc. v. Tip Top Construction Corp. · filed 2016-03-28(b)(2)

Magistrate Judge Bruce McGiverin issued an elaborately-reasoned Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) finding the District of Puerto Ricp is a proper venue under Section 1391(b)(2) and therefore, recommending Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be denied. ... After careful review, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge McGiverin’s R & R at Docket No. 28 and DENIES Tip Top’s Motion to Dismiss at Docket No. 11.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including a lawsuit filing alleged to be part of the wrongful conduct.

Tadayon v. DATTCO, Inc. · filed 2016-03-30(b)(2)

“A civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events ... giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In view that' defendants allege that the very filing of this lawsuit was part of the conspiracy to commit fraud, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Connecticut. I therefore find that venue in the District of Connecticut is proper.

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

Tolene v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc. · filed 2016-03-31(b)(2)

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

Crayola, LLC v. Buckley · filed 2016-04-14(b)(2)

No “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” occurred within this district, and so venue here is improper. 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, even if venue is also proper in another district.

Covey Run, LLC v. Washington Capital, LLC · filed 2016-07-11(b)(2)

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to show that a “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to [Plaintiffs’] claim” against the Loomar Defendants occurred in the District of Columbia.

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

Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Hernandez · filed 2016-07-20(a), (b)

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a) and (b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions ... giving rise to the claim occurred in this district and the impact of Defendant’s misconduct 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.

Witt v. Nation-Wide Horse Transportation, Inc. · filed 2016-07-25(a)(2)

Venue is clearly proper in Iowa pursuant to § 1391 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred here. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the bulk of injury to Sebastian occurred when he was being removed from the transport trailer in Des Moines, Iowa.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim to have occurred in the district, with the focus on the defendant’s allegedly wrongful activities.

Everest Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Ro · filed 2016-07-26(b)(2)

In the Eighth Circuit, courts determining whether § 1391(b)(2) applies in a given case must “focus on relevant activities of the defendant, not of the plaintiff.” ... The acts in Minnesota, by contrast, are not substantial for venue purposes under Eighth Circuit precedent. Therefore, venue in the District of Minnesota is improper.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim to have occurred in the district; military appellate review there does not establish venue when the operative events occurred elsewhere.

E. v. v. Robinson · filed 2016-08-02(e)(1)(B)

E.V. admits that “most of the events giving rise to E.V.’s claim” occurred in Okinawa, Japan, Pl.’s Reply [ECF No. 13] at 9, but still tries to wedge this case within § 1391(e)(1)(B) on the razor-thin basis that both the CAAF and CCA are located in D.C. ... While the decisions of the CAA and CAAF had an impact on E.V.’s situation, the events that matter in this challenge occurred in Japan—not in Washington, D.C.

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

Inspired By Design, LLC v. Sammy's Sew Shop, LLC · filed 2016-08-03(b)(2)

Because a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiffs claims occurred in Kansas, venue is proper here.

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

Fahnbulleh v. Lynch · filed 2016-08-08(b)

Because plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Rivers Correctional institution in Winton, North Carolina, this Court sitting in the District of Columbia is not the proper forum for litigating the prison conditions claim in any event. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (designating the proper venue under the circumstances presented as the judicial district in the State where a substantial part of the events occurred). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina is properly situated to address that claim.

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

Hispanic Affairs Project v. Perez · filed 2016-09-09(b)

Here, the parties do not dispute that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in Colorado, where the individual plaintiffs live and work, or that the defendants would be subject to that court’s personal jurisdiction. ... The Court therefore turns to consideration of which forum, the District of Columbia or the District of Colorado, best serves the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and interest of justice, as required by § 1404(a).

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

Tlapanco v. Elges · filed 2016-09-15(b)(2)

Given that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Eastern District of Michigan, where Oakland County is located, the Court agrees that venue there would be proper.

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

King v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc. · filed 2016-09-28(b)(2)

Thus, it is clear from the face of the complaint that § 1391(b)(2) does not provide a basis for venue in the District of Columbia.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including solicitation, payment, and resulting harm.

Wall v. Corona Capital, LLC · filed 2016-11-22(b)(2)

While the alleged breach occurred in Florida, we find venue proper because a “substantial part of the events” giving rise to the claim occurred here.

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

Jericho Baptist Church Ministries, Inc. (District of Columbia) v. Jericho Baptist Church Ministries, Inc. (Maryland) · filed 2016-12-09(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. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). That requirement is easily satisfied here. Defendants are alleged to have filed papers with an agency of the District of Columbia that “falsely represented that the Board of Trustees for Jericho DC unanimously approved” the merger with Jericho Maryland. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 29–30. That alleged conduct is clearly a “substantial part of the events” giving rise to Jericho DC’s claims.