28 U.S.C. § 1391

Section 1391(b)(2) looks to the location of defendants’ relevant activities when deciding where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred.

Strickland v. County Council of Beaufort County · filed 2017-01-06(b)(2)

In determining whether a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Strickland's claims occurred in Minnesota, the Court looks to the location of Defendants’ relevant activities, not Strickland's activities or the effects that Defendants’ conduct had on Strickland in Minnesota.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where events or omissions in the district form a substantial part of the basis for the claim.

CareFirst, Inc. v. Taylor · filed 2017-01-09(b)(2)

Because venue is proper on the basis of substantial events or omissions, the court need not consider whether a “substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated” in this district.

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

International Union v. Consol Energy, Inc. · filed 2017-03-17(b)(2)

As for venue, the governing statute is 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (“a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. ...”). Since, as the court already has established, it is here that Defendant CONSOL Energy sold the HRA scheme to the retired miners, venue is proper here.

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

Meridian Imaging Solutions, Inc. v. Omni Business Solutions LLC · filed 2017-04-25(b)(2)

Here, there is no question that venue is proper in this district, because the Complaint properly alleges that “a substantial part of the events ... giving rise to the claim occurred” in this district.

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

Nicks v. Koch Meat Co. · filed 2017-05-15(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois 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.

Davalloo v. Kaplan · filed 2017-06-22(b)(2)

The terms of the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), permit a civil proceeding to be brought in a judicial district “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” Given that the crime, trial and conviction took place in Connecticut, the action could have been brought in Connecticut.

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

Armstrong v. Costco Wholesale Corp. · filed 2017-02-17(b)(2)

The case could have been filed in the District of Oregon. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (“A civil action may be brought in ... a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”).

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

Stevenson v. Delta Airlines, Inc. · filed 2017-05-05(b)(2)

In this case, there is no dispute that Plaintiff could have brought this case in the Eastern District of Louisiana because the acts about which she complains occurred there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Stevenson v. Jones · filed 2017-05-30(b)

Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events or omissions giving rise to the complaint occurred in San Mateo County, located in the Northern District.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where insurance policies were purchased and issued when the action seeks a declaration about coverage under those policies.

Safeco Insurance Co. of Indiana v. Carlson · filed 2017-08-14(b)(2)

Moreover, this is a declaratory-judgment action concerning insurance coverage, and hence a substantial part of the events occurred in Minnesota because it is undisputed the policies in question were purchased and issued in this state.

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

Greene v. Feaster · filed 2017-08-16(b)(2)

Because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred” in this district, venue is proper in this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including the issuance of an insurance policy and the handling of a claim under it.

Parker v. United Financial Casualty Company · filed 2017-08-22(b)(2)

Second, venue is proper in West Virginia under the “substantial part of the events” provision, § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where the plaintiff alleges injury from trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Weis v. Kimsaprincess Inc. · filed 2017-10-30(b)(2)

The Court agrees that venue is proper in this District. Pursuant to 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." ... Plaintiff has established venue in this district "because [she] allege[s] that [she] suffered injury in this District as a result of Defendant['s] alleged trademark infringement [and] unfair competition."

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

Creese v. District of Columbia · filed 2017-11-20(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the District Court for the District of Columbia because “a substantial part of the acts and omissions that gave rise to the Complaint” occurred within the District. Compl. ¶ 3; see also 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 or a substantial part of the property at issue is located.

Westley v. Alberto · filed 2017-07-12(b)(2)

Given that the property in question was in Miami and the events at the center of the complaint overwhelmingly took place in Miami, the district court correctly determined that the proper venue was the Southern District of Florida. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (noting that where defendants are from more than one state, venue lies where “a substantial part of the events” giving rise to the complaint occurred).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to an online defamation claim occurred, including a district where the statements were published and the plaintiffs reside.

Seidel v. Kirby · filed 2017-10-27(b)(2)

Because the allegedly defamatory statements here were published in Maryland and the Plaintiffs reside in Maryland, the Court concludes that a substantial part of the events that gave rise to this action occurred in Maryland, and venue is proper in this District.

Medical treatment after an accident does not make the treatment location a proper venue when the acts giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.

Hansen v. Farrar · filed 2017-11-30(b)(2)

The Court finds that venue is not proper in the Northern District of Oklahoma, because all of the acts giving rise to plaintiff’s claim occurred in Fort Smith, Arkansas.

Section 1391 permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including a plaintiff’s attempts to access a website in that district.

Access Now, Inc. v. Otter Products, LLC · filed 2017-12-04(b)(2)

Although the website may have been created and operated outside of the district, the attempts to access the website in Massachusetts are part of the sequence of events underlying the claim. Therefore, venue is proper in this District.

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

Hayes v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP · filed 2017-12-18(b)(2)

Under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in, among other places, “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” Since the injury in question took place in a Walmart store located in the Middle District of Georgia, venue is proper there.

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

Franklin v. Sessions · filed 2017-12-21(b)(2)

And, because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Mr. Franklin's claims-namely, his emergency mental health examination-occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania, venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim to occur in the district; a bank’s issuing a check there does not establish venue when the claims concern conduct elsewhere.

Roberts v. Marcus · filed 2018-01-16(b)(2)

Because the defendants—actual and potential—do not reside in this District, venue lies in a judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action arose. The District of Massachusetts does not meet that requirement. Although Roberts states that a Massachusetts bank issued the check that was sent to and cashed by Marcus, his claims are against Marcus (Wisconsin) and individuals working at NBCI (Maryland).

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

Teich v. US Foods, Inc. · filed 2018-01-22(b)(2)

The Court finds that because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Teich’s claim occurred in the Middle District of Florida, venue is proper there.

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

Hyman v. Capital One Auto Fin. · filed 2018-01-23(b)(2)

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

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

Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. iMove, Inc. · filed 2018-01-25(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this claim occurred here, and Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction here.

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

Satterfield v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. · filed 2018-01-26(b)(2)

The Court finds Satterfield has not made that showing: a substantial part of GEICO's investigation and evaluation of Satterfield's UM claim did not occur in Oklahoma, and because Satterfield has at all times resided in Virginia, any harm that she suffered as a result of GEICO's decision regarding UM benefits would not have been felt in this judicial district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where communications made to or from a district form a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim.

Nabong v. Paddayuman · filed 2018-02-05(b)(2)

It is well settled that, when particular communications made to or from the District of Columbia form the basis of a claim like fraud, that the communications constitute a “substantial part of the events” giving rise to the claim and that, therefore, venue in the District is proper.

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.

Jalloh v. Underwood · filed 2018-03-02(b)(2)

Because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Jalloh’s claims took place in the District of Columbia, venue is proper under 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, including the contractual performance underlying the claim.

Winmar Construction, Inc. v. Jk Moving & Storage, Inc. · filed 2018-03-07(b)(2)

The Court agrees—“a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [Winmar’s] claim occurred” in Virginia. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Winmar Constr., Inc. v. JK Moving & Storage, Inc. · filed 2018-03-07(b)(2)

The Court agrees-"a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [Winmar's] claim occurred" in Virginia.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where fraudulent misrepresentations directed into the district form a substantial part of the events giving rise to a fraud claim.

Trois v. Apple Tree Auction Center, Inc, e · filed 2018-02-05(b)(2)

Here, the misrepresentations directed at Texas are a substantial part of the events giving rise to the alleged fraud. Accordingly, we hold that the Texas district court is a proper venue for the fraud claim.

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

Adams Outdoor Adver. Ltd. P'ship v. Pa. Dep't of Transp. · filed 2018-02-09(b)(2)

Because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to Adams's claims occurred in this District, namely the alleged suppression of free speech, Richards's request to transfer venue is denied.

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

Serac Inc. v. United Packaging Group, LLC · filed 2018-03-26(b)(2)

Because Serac performed virtually all of its obligations under the contract in this district, we find venue in this district is proper under § 1391(b)(2).

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

Management Registry, Inc. v. Batinich · filed 2018-04-02(b)(2)

Venue is proper in a federal district where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred…” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... Batinich’s role is thoroughly detailed in M.R.I.’s Amended Complaint in the Minnesota action, A.W. Companies’ presence is evident both explicitly and implicitly throughout M.R.I.’s Complaint against Batinich before this Court, and the undisputed record demonstrates an individual whose actions on behalf of a Minnesota company contribute to the “historical predicate for the instant suit.”

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a plaintiff received extended treatment for accident injuries, even when the accident occurred in another district.

Kershner v. Komatsu Ltd. · filed 2018-04-10(b)(2)

Since the accident occurred in the Southern District of Ohio, and Plaintiff was treated for his injuries in the Western District of Pennsylvania for an extended period of time, venue is proper in these districts.

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

Leskovisek v. Ill. Dep't of Transp. · filed 2018-04-10(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in multiple districts when a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in each.

Tech. Credit Corp. v. N.J. Christian Acad., Inc. · filed 2018-04-18(b)(2)

Thus, under § 1391, "venue may be proper in multiple districts if a 'substantial part' of the underlying events took place in each of those districts."

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue where a challenged federal policy was implemented and its effects were felt, even if the policy was adopted elsewhere.

Serv. Women's Action Network v. Mattis · filed 2018-05-01(e)(1)(B)

Therefore, in analyzing venue under § 1391 venue, the Court considers not simply where the decisions were made regarding the Leaders First and Marines training policies but also where the decisions were implemented and its effects felt.

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

Carter v. Rudinplay, Inc. · filed 2018-05-07(b)(2)

By all appearances, that court would have subject matter jurisdiction over this case; venue would be proper there because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” there, supporting venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2); and specific jurisdiction would exist over Carter in her capacity as personal representative of the Estate given (among other things) her communications with Rudinplay in New York, her travel to New York for a face-to-face meeting with Rudinplay about this dispute, and the parties’ clearly stated intention that the Play may be staged on Broadway in New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred; the plaintiff need not prove at the venue stage that those events were unlawful.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ameriprise Fin. Servs., Inc. · filed 2018-05-21(b)(2)

Venue is proper in a judicial district where a "substantial part of events" giving rise to the asserted claims occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Defendant argues that its "wholly lawful interactions" with Illinois-based EFSs cannot support venue under on this basis, but this argument repeats the error of resting on a merits issue not appropriate at this stage. Transfer is not appropriate under § 1406(a).

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

Allstate Insurance Company v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2018-05-21(b)(2)

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

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

Shrewsbury v. American Red Cross Mid Atlantic Region · filed 2018-05-25(b)(2)

Determining whether venue is proper is generally guided by 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] civil action may be brought in . . . a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... As such, all contested acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in the Beckley Division. Accordingly, venue in the Beckley Division is proper.

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

Flight Options, LLC v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · filed 2018-06-01(b)(2)

However, it is much more clear that the District of Columbia is “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” Id. § 1391(b)(2).

Venue under § 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim to have occurred in the district.

Asea/Afscme Local 52 Health Benefits Trust v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2018-06-18(b)(2)

ASEA’s arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, it 1s also apparent that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to ASEA’s claim did not occur in Illinois. Abbott’s involvement in this case came only at the tail end of the alleged period of wrongdoing and after all of the defective devices had already entered the market. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the central events to this case occurred in Hhinois.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events occurred or the property at issue is situated, even when other districts also have connections to the claim.

Crothall Laundry Services, Inc. v. OSF Health Care System · filed 2018-04-06(b)(2)

Section 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, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... While the Court does not agree that the allegations in the Complaint only involve actions and property in the Central District of Illinois, Defendants have met their burden of establishing that venue and jurisdiction are proper in the transferee 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.

Wedi Corp. v. Seattle Glass Block Window, Inc. · filed 2018-04-16(b)(2)

The relevant actions of defendant generally took place in Washington. Venue is proper in the state of Washington.

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

Flight Options, LLC v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters · filed 2018-06-01(b)(2)

However, it is much more clear that the District of Columbia is "a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." ... First, all parties mutually agreed to hold the arbitration hearing in this city. Second, all parties presented themselves on the appointed days to present their cases to Arbitrator LaRue. Third, it is exactly that Arbitrator's decision that is in contention here.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, including where a website targets readers and prevents a plaintiff there from obtaining information.

Carroll v. Fedfinancial Fed. Credit Union · filed 2018-06-25(b)(2)

However, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) as a "judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." As explained above, Defendant maintains its website with the intent of targeting at least some Virginia readers, and Virginia is the location from which Plaintiff was prevented from acquiring information about Defendant's services and branch location. Thus the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Virginia, and venue is proper in this Court.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim to occur in the district; peripheral events do not establish venue.

Cockrum v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. · filed 2018-07-03(b)(2)

Venue is improper in the District because plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that a ... substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiffs’ claim occurred here.

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

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Flanders-Borden · filed 2018-07-09(b)(2)

Ms. Borden’s argument that this venue is improper is meritless. As a general matter, 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, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The primary issue in the case between Ms. Borden and the crossclaim plaintiffs revolves around whether a cash management account held by Merrill Lynch should be distributed according to a Transfer on Death Agreement (“TOD Agreement”). The TOD Agreement was signed by the decedent at his home in Nantucket and it was notarized by a notary public licensed in Massachusetts.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where employees performed the work underlying their wage claims, even if the employer made its pay decisions elsewhere.

Hickman v. TL Transp., LLC · filed 2018-07-12(b)(2)

The basis for venue here is 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), which provides that a civil action may be brought in "a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred ...." Defendants contend that because they executed decisions related to TLT's pay policies in Maryland, a "substantial portion" of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims did not occur in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. But the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs' claims arise from work they performed based out of TLT's Pennsylvania facilities, all of which are located in this district. This by itself clearly establishes that a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred in this venue.

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

Gutierrez v. Drill Cuttings Disposal Co. · filed 2018-07-20(b)(2)

Given that the Court has found, and Defendants concede, that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Jeffrey Reddoch, Sr., and Jeffrey Reddoch, Jr., and based on Plaintiffs' claims about their employment that allegedly occurred in this District, the Court finds that venue is proper as to Jeffrey Reddoch, Sr., and Jeffrey Reddoch, Jr. as well.

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

S.N.C. v. Sessions · filed 2018-08-28(e)(1)(B)

This Court has jurisdiction over this claim, as the Attorney General "is unquestionably subject to long-arm jurisdiction under New York law," Henderson v. I.N.S. , 157 F.3d 106, 124 n.19 (2d Cir. 1998) ; because "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred" in this District, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B) ; and because venue in this district does not pose an inconvenience for the parties or otherwise offend other "traditional venue considerations," Batista-Taveras , 2004 WL 2149095, at *6.

Under § 1391(b)(2), venue depends on where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; a similar action pending in a district has little bearing on venue there.

Casey v. Odwalla, Inc. · filed 2018-09-19(b)(2)

Section 1391(b)(2) cannot be met for this case in the Central District of California either. Defendants' contention that a similar action is already being litigated against them in that district may have some bearing on whether jurisdiction would be proper in that district, but has little bearing on the issue of venue.

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.

Tracy Holdings LLC v. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. · filed 2018-09-24(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division, because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise the claim occurred in this judicial district.

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

Harbridge v. Schwarzeneggar · filed 2018-10-03(b)

The district court properly dismissed Harbridge’s claims regarding the grievance system at Pleasant Valley State Prison for improper venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (listing grounds for venue and explaining that a civil action should be brought in the judicial district in which a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claim occurred).

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

Lansberry v. Altoona Area Sch. Dist. · filed 2018-07-20(b)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where infringement and resulting injury constitute a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claims.

Brito v. Urbina · filed 2018-08-02(b)(2)

Such evidence and allegations of infringement and resulting injury in this District are enough to establish that a “substantial portion” of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ trademark and copyright infringement claims—the crux of their lawsuit—occurred 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.

Westport Ins. Corp. v. Hippo Fleming & Pertile Law Offices · filed 2018-10-01(b)(2)

Because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Westport's claims occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania, venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Cyfers v. Collins Career Center · filed 2018-10-23(b)(2)

As will be seen, each the Southern District of Ohio and the Southern District of West Virginia qualify under § 1391(b)(2) as events giving rise to the claim occurred in both.

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

Griffin v. Walmart · filed 2018-11-07(b)(2)

Under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in, among other places, “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” Since the alleged injury in question took place . in a Walmart store located in the Northern District of Georgia, venue is proper there.

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

Robey v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2018-12-04(b)(2)

Rather, the venue analysis focuses on whether a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated. ... Here, too, Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden of establishing transactional venue under § 1391(b)(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.

AFSCME Council 5 v. Employee Based Systems · filed 2018-12-13(a)(2)

Moreover, because, as discussed above, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in Minnesota, venue in this judicial district is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2).

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

Weisskopf v. Jerusalem Foundation · filed 2019-01-14(b)(2)

In other words, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim that led to the injunction took place in the Southern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). That injunction, and the degree to which it applies to this case, is an integral part of the controversy that any court hearing this case must decide. For this reason alone, venue is proper in the Southern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including delivery and installation of the disputed equipment.

Healthright Products LLC v. Coastal Counting & Industrial Scale Company, Inc. d/b/a ActionPac Scales & Automation · filed 2019-01-17(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois. Venue is proper in a judicial district where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred[.]” 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b)(2). In this case, the packaging equipment at issue was delivered to and installed in DeKalb, Illinois. Defendant sent two of its employees to Illinois to aid in the installation process there.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for a defamation claim where the plaintiff suffers substantial reputational harm, even if the defendant posted the statements from another state.

Doe v. Lee · filed 2019-01-17(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s defamation claim, i.e., the reputational harm suffered, occurred in Illinois.

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

RightCHOICE Managed Care, Inc. v. Hospital Partners, Inc. · filed 2019-01-23(b)(2)

Venue lies here because Defendants allegedly billed RightCHOICE for fraudulent claims through the Hospital, which multiple Defendants managed and which is located within the Saint Joseph Division of the Western District of Missouri.

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

McCampbell v. McCampbell · filed 2018-10-12(b)(2)

As discussed above, the sale of the Home is a substantial part of the events giving rise to Martha’s claims. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that venue is proper in the District of Minnesota and denies David’s and Laura’s motion to dismiss based on improper venue.

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

Shaffer v. Health Acquisition Company LLC · filed 2019-03-05(b)(2)

However, 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). ... Venue is proper here because a substantial part of the relevant events or omissions alleged in the First-Amended Complaint occurred in this district, including Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations to HMC at an HMC Board meeting in Kansas City, Missouri.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district with a substantial connection to the events giving rise to the claims, even if another forum has more contacts.

Copperhead Agricultural Products, LLC v. KB Ag Corporation, LLC · filed 2019-03-14(b)(2)

The Court concludes that the present venue has a substantial connection to the claims asserted by Plaintiffs in their Complaint.

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

Caranchini v. Peck · filed 2019-03-25(b)(2)

Venue in this case turns on § 1391(b)(2), which provides that a plaintiff may bring a civil action in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” ... Thus, a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in Missouri, and venue in this jurisdiction is proper.

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

Exelon Generation Company, LLC v. Grumbles · filed 2019-03-29(b)(2)

They establish that a substantial part of the events giving rise to this suit occurred in the District of Columbia and venue is proper here.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not permit venue in a district when the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.

Kaiser v. The Monroe Clinic, Inc. · filed 2019-04-19(b)(2)

It is clear from the physicians’ statements that the only events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Wisconsin. Accordingly, venue is not proper in this court 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.

CLARK v. PARSEC INC · filed 2019-04-29(b)(2)

As an initial matter, the action could have been brought in the Northern District because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Blevins v. Mark · filed 2019-05-06(b)(2)

However, the Court also notes that the allegations concern Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement in the William E. Donaldson Correctional Facility in Bessemer, Alabama, which falls within the geographic jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Thus, any claims related to Plaintiff’s imprisonment are more properly addressed in and by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

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

(PC) Garcia v. Corrections Corporation of America · filed 2019-05-16(b)(2)

Where, as here, an action is before the court under diversity jurisdiction, a venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)3 if the action could have been brought there. ... Thus, the court concludes that venue is proper within the transferee district.

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

Greenfield v. The Monroe Clinic, Inc. · filed 2019-05-23(b)(2)

Ultimately, Ms. Greenfield would not have suffered the alleged medical negligence and failure to obtain informed consent had Dr. Ehle not treated and counseled her as he did in Illinois; neither would Mr. Greenfield have suffered the alleged loss of consortium. Therefore, venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Kaul v. Schumer · filed 2019-05-29(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in New Jersey. Plaintiff is alleging a conspiracy to obstruct his litigation of a civil action in New Jersey and to influence a New Jersey District Court Judge in a case arising from the decision of the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners to revoke Plaintiff’s New Jersey medical license. Venue is therefore proper in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Venue is proper in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a contract claim occurred, including negotiation and signing of the contract.

Brunswick Corporation v. Fitness 19 OH 237, LLC · filed 2019-05-31(b)(2)

The Court agrees that venue is proper here. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), “[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.” ... Plaintiff’s complaint does not specify what those events are, but its opposition to the motion to transfer clarifies that Plaintiff’s principal place of business is located in the District, as is Plaintiff’s principal witness and representative who negotiated and signed the contract at issue. Dkt. 13 at 4. That is enough to establish 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 claim occurred.

DENMARK v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC. · filed 2019-06-04(b)(2)

Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina as “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that District.

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

Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A.S. v. Forever Trading Corporation · filed 2019-06-07(b)(2)

Therefore, Plaintiff has carried its burden of showing that venue is proper 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 where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

COOK v. RILEY · filed 2019-06-10(b)(2)

Here, since all of the acts or omissions alleged in the complaint took place in Gloucester County, New Jersey (see Compl., at 1–2), transfer of this action is appropriate.

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

Moore v. Magiera Diesel Injection Services, Inc. · filed 2019-06-17(b)(2)

As to the first step of the transfer analysis, venue is proper in the Northern District of Indiana, the proposed transferee court, because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that District.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not permit venue in a district where no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Dy v. Nale · filed 2019-06-24(b)(2)

Venue was not proper in the Eastern District of California because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to” his claims did not occur in that district; all of the alleged deliberate indifference and medical malpractice occurred in Arizona. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred; an uncontested allegation that the events occurred there can suffice to defeat a motion to dismiss for improper venue.

Alridge v. G4s Secure Solutions · filed 2019-07-08(b)(2)

There are three bases for venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b): (1) if it is the defendant’s place of residence, (2) if it is the district where a substantial part of the events or omissions took place, and (3) if venue is not proper anywhere else, it may be proper wherever the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction of the courts. ... As a result, Plaintiff’s statement alleging that the events took place in D.C., while not robust or comprehensive, remains undefeated by any facts Defendant presents. Alridge has thus provided a reason as to why the District is the proper venue.

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

Western Watersheds Project v. Zinke · filed 2019-07-09(e)(1)(B)

Wyoming is a proper venue for Plaintiffs’ NPL Project claims because, at the very least, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise” to the claims took place in Wyoming.

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

Swartz v. Textron Ground Support Equipment Inc. · filed 2019-07-09(b)(2)

A civil action may be filed 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, it is uncontroverted that Plaintiff was injured at DFW in Tarrant County, located in the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas.

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

Kenny v. Prisoner Transport Services, LLC · filed 2019-07-16(b)(2)

And finally, venue would be proper in the District of Arizona because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Kenny’s claims occurred there.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where recipients read allegedly defamatory emails.

Birara v. Kelel · filed 2019-07-16(b)(2)

Where Birara resides in Maryland and recipients of the offending emails reside in Maryland, the Court concludes that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the defamation claim occurred in Maryland.

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

Abergel v. Professional Claims Bureau Inc. · filed 2019-07-17(b)(2)

While it is unclear whether Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, it is clear that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for this action. See §§ 112(c), 1391(b)(2). Defendant is located in the Eastern District of New York. It is likely therefore that the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in that judicial district, and that the relevant documents and witnesses are also located there.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where officials established and coordinated the challenged policy.

Lkq Corporation v. United States of America · filed 2019-07-23(b)(2)

Although the Court will ultimately dismiss the plaintiff’s Bivens claims on the merits, see Section III.G, the plaintiff has established that venue is proper in the District of Columbia because the complaint alleges facts raising the plausible inference that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to LKQ’s claims occurred in this district.” Compl. ¶ 24; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for a trademark infringement claim where sales of allegedly infringing products cause consumer confusion in the district.

Shippitsa Limited v. Slack · filed 2019-07-23(b)(2)

... because Wolfson Berg sold its allegedly-infringing products, via its allegedly-infringing website, to 172 district residents, and thereby caused consumer confusion within the district—the court concludes that a substantial portion of the events giving rise to Shippitsa’s claim occurred in the Northern District of Texas.

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

Staples v. H Walker Enterprises LLC · filed 2019-07-24(b)(2)

The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. The 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(b)(2). It does not require all acts giving rise to a ... plaintiff’s claims to occur in that judicial district.

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

Gregory v. Whitney · filed 2019-08-07(b)(2)

Here, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona because a substantial part of the alleged events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in Arizona, and property at issue in the underlying proceedings in Arizona was in Arizona and California.

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

McMillian v. Noeth · filed 2019-08-14(b)(2)

Because the Attica Correctional Facility is located in Wyoming County, New York, the Court determines that the Western District of New York is the proper venue for this case.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including a plaintiff’s performance under a contract.

MALEK v. CHEF'S ROLL, INC. · filed 2019-08-16(b)(2)

Section 1391(b)(2) states that venue is proper in any district where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... New Jersey has a “real relationship to the dispute,” and fairness to Defendant is preserved in the Court holding venue proper in this District.

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

Oregon Mutual Insurance Company v. Barkley · filed 2019-08-19(b)(2)

Venue is proper here for this declaratory judgment action because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the insurance coverage dispute—including the negotiation, payment and issuance of the policy—occurred in Washington.

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

HORVATH v. GLOBE LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2019-08-27(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as a substantial portion of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in this District.

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

Latino v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc. · filed 2019-08-08(b)(2)

Transferring this case to the Eastern District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), which provides that venue is proper where a substantial portion of the activity giving rise to the claim occurs. It is uncontroverted that the accident happened in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

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

Dumpson v. Ade · filed 2019-08-09(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this Court and the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because the allegedly discriminatory statements were targeted at an individual that attended school in, and activities that occurred in, the District of Columbia. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4; D.C. Code § 13-423(a)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Debellis v. Massing · filed 2019-08-16(b)

A civil action must be filed in a judicial district in which any defendant resides, 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Because plaintiff alleges that his false arrest and prosecution occurred in Putnam County, plaintiff could have filed this action in the Southern District of New York, which includes Putnam County.

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

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. United States · filed 2019-08-28(b)(2)

First, SpaceX persuasively argues that the claims asserted in the complaint could have been brought in the United States District Court for the Central District of California at the time Space X commenced this action. Pl. Resp. at 37-38; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (stating that a civil action may be brought against the United States in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated”). SpaceX represents that its principal place of business is located within the Central District of California and that the Air Force office that made the evaluation and portfolio award decisions for the LSARFP is also located within that district. Pl. Resp. at 38. And so, Space X has shown that that the events giving rise to its claims occurred within in the Central District of California.

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

QUICK v. THE GEO GROUP, INC. · filed 2019-08-16(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this case took place within 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.

Sitzer v. National Association of Realtors · filed 2019-08-19(b)(2)

The broad reading allows Plaintiffs to establish venue by showing that “a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred” in this District. § 1391. ... Accordingly, venue is proper in the Western District of Missouri under § 1391.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where the defendant gathered information and the plaintiff suffered reputational harm.

SAPS, LLC v. EZCare Clinic, Inc. · filed 2019-08-20(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate in, inter alia, “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). The article giving rise to this action concerns a citizen of Louisiana. EZCare gathered information for the article by accessing SAPS’s website, which it maintains from Louisiana, and by placing a phone call to Louisiana. Further, the reputational damage to SAPS was suffered in Louisiana. The Court finds this district to be a proper venue for this dispute.

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.

Vine Oil & Gas LP v. Ho · filed 2019-08-30(b)(2)

Applying § 1391(b)(2), it is clear to the Court that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas as to Indigo because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Vine’s claims against Indigo occurred in this district and a substantial amount of the property that is the subject of this action is situated in this district.

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

Receivership Management, Inc. as Independent Fiduciary v. AEU Holdings, LLC · filed 2019-09-04(b)(2)

Venue is proper in a district where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2); Capgain Props. Inc. v. Landmaster Partners, LLC, No. 15 C 9234, 2016 WL 3035534, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 29, 2016). A “substantial part” is less than a majority, and venue is proper in a district with substantial ties to the claims even if more claim-related events took place in other districts. ... These events are sufficient to establish this district’s substantial ties to the events giving rise to IF’s claim.

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

Lopez v. Pennsylvania Tool Sales & Service Inc · filed 2019-09-06(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 3.01(A)(1) (D.S.C.) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Columbia Division of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

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

Post Acute Medical, LLC v. Leblanc · filed 2019-09-16(b)(2)

Although we appreciate that a plaintiff’s choice of forum is given great weight, we find that PAM has failed entirely to provide any basis for us to determine that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Pennsylvania, or that a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated in Pennsylvania. The events, omissions, or property giving rise to the instant claims are at best only tangentially related to Pennsylvania. Accordingly, we find venue inappropriate in Pennsylvania and PAM’s complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice to refile in an appropriate jurisdiction.

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

BANKS v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2019-09-18(b)(2)

Transfer of this action falls within section 1404(a) because both the original venue in New Jersey and the requested venue in Pennsylvania are proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

For a conspiracy claim, § 1391(b)(2) looks to the alleged activities giving rise to the claim, rather than one defendant’s activities alone.

Pro Slab Inc v. Argos North America Corp · filed 2019-09-19(b)(2)

Accordingly, in applying § 1391(b)(2), the Court does not focus on the alleged activities of Evans Concrete alone, as Evans Concrete is but one of the alleged co-conspirators, but on the alleged activities that give rise to the claim.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where the plaintiff received the alleged unlawful calls.

Mey v. Castle Law Group, PC · filed 2019-09-20(b)(2)

Finally, this Court finds that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the Northern District of West Virginia is the “judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.”

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

Peterkin v. Quick Chill Food Services · filed 2019-09-20(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s claims allegedly arose in seven correctional facilities, only three of which are located within this District: Sing Sing, Green Haven, and Downstate. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to detail claims arising in this District.

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

Biter v. Director, TDCJ · filed 2019-08-29(b)

Moreover, under the statute governing venue for civil rights claims, venue would be improper in this judicial district because the events giving rise to a potential civil rights claim took place in Anderson County in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.

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

Casanova v. Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center · filed 2019-09-09(b)(2)

But because the events giving rise to this claim occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, it is clear that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue under § 1391(b)(2)for Plaintiffto litigate hisBivensclaim.

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

Melehy & Associates LLC v. Haile · filed 2019-09-12(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the action arises in connection with legal services rendered in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia.

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

(HC) Washington v. Lynch · filed 2019-09-20(b)

A “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Northern District, so venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council · filed 2019-09-11(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate in this court since the alleged constitutional violations occurred in this district.

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

GRACIANO V. BLUE SKY LOGISTICS LLC · filed 2019-09-13(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Middle District of North Carolina because the accident occurred within the district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Debellis v. Soloman · filed 2019-09-13(b)

A civil action must be filed in a judicial district in which any defendant resides, 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. ... Because plaintiff alleges that all the events giving rise to his claims occurred in either Bronx County or New York County, plaintiff could have filed this action in the Southern District of New York, which includes both Bronx and New York Counties.

Under § 1391(b), venue for a trademark infringement claim requires a substantial connection between the alleged infringement and the district.

Now-Casting Economics, LTD. v. Economic Alchemy LLC · filed 2019-09-24(b)

The controlling statute is 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which establishes in relevant part that suit may be brought in the district in where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” ... Economic Alchemy did not allege facts that demonstrate the Federal Banks challenging venue infringed on their trademark in New York. ... Accordingly, venue over the relevant Banks is not proper.

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

Schlesinger v. Collins · filed 2019-09-25(b)(2)

But even accepting that as true, that does not mean that a substantial part of the events did not also take place in California where the phone call was directed and where the harm was inflicted. ... The Court therefore denies the motion to dismiss based on improper venue.

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

Doshier v. Twitter Inc · filed 2019-09-27(b)(2)

Given that plaintiffs allege that each Engagement and charge by Twitter is its own event giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims, the Court concludes that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims did not occur 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.

dotStrategy, Co. v. Twitter Inc · filed 2019-09-27(b)(2)

Given that plaintiffs allege that each Engagement and charge by Twitter is its own event giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims, the Court concludes that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims did not occur in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a single meeting forms a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims, even when other relevant acts occurred elsewhere.

NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. STAMFORD BROOK CAPITAL, LLC · filed 2019-09-27(b)(2)

Thus, when analyzed as a step in “the entire sequence of events,” Mitrano, 377 F.3d at 405, the meeting was a “substantial,” if not crucial part of the behavior giving rise to NCM’s claims. Accordingly, venue in this district is proper.

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

BEREZANSKY v. CNB BANK · filed 2019-09-30(b)(2)

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

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

Seaton v. United States Department of Agriculture · filed 2019-09-30(b)

Further, venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which provides that an action may be brought where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” Id. ... For now, suffice it to say most critical events and key individuals trace to this District.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where allegedly false SEC filings were prepared.

In re USA Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation · filed 2019-09-30(b)

Applying this logic to the case at bar, Plaintiffs claims arose in Pennsylvania because the SEC filings containing the alleged misstatements were prepared there. Thus, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a proper venue for this matter under Section 27 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78aa) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Goodall v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision · filed 2019-10-01(b)(2)

The court finds that venue in that district would be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claim occurred at Greene Correctional Facility, which is located in the Northern District of New York.

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

Catchings v. Unknown U.S. DOJ Official · filed 2019-10-04(b)

In addition, it appears a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Los Angeles, which is in the Western Division of the Central District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s suit should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

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

STRICKLAND v. HAINES CITY POLICE DEPT · filed 2019-09-25(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate here in the Western District of Pennsylvania under § 1391(b)(2) as Mr. Strickland alleges that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims 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.

Peppers Unlimited, Inc. v. Trujillo · filed 2019-09-26(b)(2)

Defendant made payments to Plaintiff’s bank in Dallas, Plaintiff shipped and stored rejected products at its principal place of business in Grand Prairie, Texas, and Defendant contacted Plaintiff at their Grand Prairie location. It follows a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in the Northern District of Texas. Accordingly, the Court finds that it should and hereby does DENY Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue.

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

Omni Technologies, LLC v. Know Ink, LLC · filed 2019-09-27(b)(2)

The events giving rise to the claim occurred to a substantial degree in Alabama. Based on this analysis, a district in Alabama or Missouri may be a proper venue for this suit.

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

Rock Hill Dairy, LLC v. Genex Cooperative, Inc. · filed 2019-10-02(b)(2)

Because a substantial part of the material events occurred in Wisconsin, the Western District of Wisconsin is an appropriate venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council · filed 2019-09-30(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate in this court since the alleged constitutional violations occurred in this district. See 28 U.S.C. §1391.

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

United States v. Reeves · filed 2019-10-15(b)(2)

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is a proper venue for this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because Defendants are residents of this district and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this Complaint 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.

Corval Constructors, Inc. v. Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co. · filed 2019-10-17(b)(2)

Here, a substantial part of the events giving rise to Corval’s claims occurred in North Dakota: Corval and Tesoro contracted for Corval to perform work at the Mandan Refinery; Corval did, in fact, perform work at the Mandan Refinery; Tesoro’s alleged failure to pay Corval relates to work performed at that refinery; and Tesoro’s alleged decision to stop paying Corval related to work to be performed at the Mandan Refinery.

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.

Cisneros v. EP Wrap-It Insulation, LLC · filed 2019-10-17(b)(2)

Taking Defendants’ motion in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs worked on projects in New Mexico for which they were entitled to receive compensation in accordance with New Mexico wage laws. Therefore, it appears that venue is proper in both the Western District of Texas and the District of New Mexico. Because venue is not improper in the District of New Mexico, Defendants’ motion under Rule 12(b)(3) is denied.

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

Griffin v. Google · filed 2019-10-21(b)(2)

It is clear, however, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Brunswick Division, where Defendant Tammy Jernigan is located, is a proper venue for this action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 90(c)(5), 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.

CUPPETT v. RITE AID CORPORATION · filed 2019-10-21(b)(2)

Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's 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.

KANNIKAL v. HOLDER · filed 2019-10-21(b)(2)

Venue is proper because the case was transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania, where a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred.

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

Onyemelukwe v. Caterpillar, Inc. · filed 2019-10-23(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim to occur in the chosen district, assessed in light of the entire sequence of events.

Neufville v. Barr · filed 2019-10-25(b)(2)

In reviewing the complaint holistically, the Court finds that the only event that transpired in the District of Rhode Island, Mr. Neufville’s arrest, was insubstantial in relation to the totality of claims that Mr. Neuville alleges, which occurred in detention centers outside of the District of Rhode Island.

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

Rodriguez v. Newsom · filed 2019-10-10(b)

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

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

Hopkins v. Ahern · filed 2019-10-10(b)

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

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

Rodriguez v. Koenig · filed 2019-10-11(b)

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

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

BATTLE v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. · filed 2019-10-17(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, this action could have originally been brought there.

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

Tankesly v. Aramark Correctional Services · filed 2019-10-21(b)

If Tankesly wishes to sue these TCIX Defendants, he should file a separate complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Columbia Division, where the events occurred and where venue is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Founders Insurance Company v. Billy's Bar & Grill LLC · filed 2019-10-23(b)(2)

Thus, the communications to and from Plaintiff’s attorneys in this district constitute a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims, and venue is therefore proper in this district under § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where allegedly infringing products were created and designed.

Hong v. Recreational Equipment Inc · filed 2019-10-25(b)(2)

Second, because Mr. Hong alleges that Mr. ... Krieg’s chalk bags infringe his copyright and those bags were created and designed in ... Idaho, venue is proper in the District of Idaho.

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

Fiore Industries, Inc. v. Ericsson · filed 2019-10-30(b)(2)

This allegation (that the alleged contract at issue occurred in New Mexico) satisfies the venue requirement under § 1391(b)(2).