28 U.S.C. § 1391

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

Vivint v. Alert Holdings Group · filed 2019-10-31(b)(2)

Thus, because the theft both occurred in Utah and constitutes a “substantial part of the underlying events” of this action, venue is proper in the District of Utah.

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

KEENAN v. JONES · filed 2019-11-01(b)(2)

The events or omissions at issue occurred in both the Eastern District of Virginia, where Mr. Keenan is in custody and medical treatment allegedly should have been provided, and in the Northern District of Florida, where Florida allegedly decided not to pay for the necessary treatment. Venue is proper in either district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (allowing a civil action to be brought in any district where “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 the claim occurred.

Brodsky v. First American Title Insurance Company · filed 2019-11-05(b)(2)

Here, it appears that the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in New York and, more particularly, within the judicial district of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a substantial part of the events underlying a request for prospective relief are occurring.

Jeri v. Finley · filed 2019-11-05(b)

In this case, with respect to Jeri’s care going forward and his requests for prospective relief, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” are now taking place at the Federal Medical Center Butner and any potential defendants who might be subjects of injunctive relief would also be found at the Federal Medical Center Butner.

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

Seibert v. Precision Contracting Solutions, Lp · filed 2019-11-08(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the District of Columbia because a substantial part of the events at issue occurred in the District, as the home under renovation is located in the District.

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

Alhaj v. Law Office of Ehab Moustafa · filed 2019-11-12(b)(2)

Thus, while it is unclear whether this Court is a proper venue for this action, it appears that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for this action under § 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; the plaintiff’s injury there, without more, does not establish venue.

Dimondstein v. Stidman · filed 2019-11-18(b)(2)

Moreover, an allegation of injury in this judicial district, without more, does not mean that venue is proper here.

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

Rocky Mountain Wild v. Bernhardt · filed 2019-11-19(b)

Thus, because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred within the District of Utah, it would be a proper venue. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Venue is proper in a district where a substantial part of the events at issue occurred.

Matute v. Cnn Construction, Inc. · filed 2019-11-26(b)(2)

In addition, venue is proper in the District of Columbia because a substantial part of the events at issue occurred in D.C., as Plaintiff claims that he spent more than 50% of his time working on remodeling projects in D.C. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, even if the plaintiff suffered harm elsewhere.

Ford-Reyes v. Progressive Funeral Home · filed 2019-11-26(b)(2)

Venue is proper wherever the acts or omissions substantially took place, even if a plaintiff suffered harm someplace else.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, including allegedly fraudulent filings and concealed discovery there.

Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. · filed 2019-12-02(b)(2)

The same conduct that supports the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over the Seirus Defendants makes venue proper in this district. The Seirus Defendants filed the allegedly fraudulent motion to stay in Oregon and withheld and concealed the IPR Funding Contract from Columbia throughout discovery in the Seirus Oregon Action. These actions are enough to support 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.

Brantley v. Tampa Police Department · filed 2019-12-03(b)(2)

Plaintiff alleges that some of the events giving rise to her claims occurred in Tampa, Florida. Venue for these claims is not proper in this Court.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim to have occurred in the district; approval of an unrelated settlement does not establish venue there.

Solomon v. Equifax Information Services, LLC · filed 2019-12-04(b)(2)

Thus, the negotiation and approval of the White Order in the Central District of California do not constitute a substantial part of the events giving rise to Solomon’s claim.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue in a district where no substantial part of the events or omissions occurred and no substantial part of the property at issue is situated.

Mace v. Berje, Inc. · filed 2019-12-06(b)(2)

Venue does not lie under § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim did not occur in this District and a substantial part of the property that is the subject of this case is not situated in this District; rather, the District of South Carolina is an, and likely the only, appropriate venue 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.

Berry v. Attorney General of The State of New York · filed 2019-12-12(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Auburn, New York, where most Defendants appear to reside. Auburn is located in Cayuga County, which falls within the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Venue is therefore proper in the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Adger v. JPAY Banking National System · filed 2019-12-13(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Cayuga County, where Plaintiff is incarcerated. Cayuga County falls within the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Venue is therefore proper in the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Kang v. Sivilli · filed 2019-12-20(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

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

Waveland Services Inc v. McClure · filed 2019-12-26(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this matter under both § 1391(b), because the alleged FLSA violations relate to payroll decisions allegedly made by Waveland in this district.

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

Coston v. Onondaga County Justice Center · filed 2019-12-30(b)

The underlying events occurred in Onondaga County, where Plaintiffs are incarcerated and where most Defendants appear to reside. Onondaga County falls within the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Venue is therefore proper in the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Greys Avenue Partners, LLC v. Coupe · filed 2020-01-03(b)(2)

But venue is also appropriate under § 1391(b)(2) because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in Hawai‘i, namely Defendant’s alleged misrepresentations regarding the mortgage on and transferability of the Property, as well as Defendant’s alleged failure to provide certain information to Plaintiffs in Hawai‘i as promised, all of which harmed Plaintiffs in Hawai‘i.

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

Johnson v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. · filed 2020-01-06(b)(2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is proper in this Court as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred 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.

Leighty v. Stone Truck Lines Inc. · filed 2020-01-06(b)(2)

Because the motor-vehicle accident out of which Plaintiffs’ claims arise occurred in Wheeler County, Texas, venue is proper in the Amarillo Division of the Northern District of Texas.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for a trademark infringement claim in a district where the allegedly infringing products were sold.

Sauer Brands, Inc. v. Duke Sandwich Productions, Inc. · filed 2020-01-07(b)(2)

In other words, “[b]ecause transactional venue for trademark infringement actions is appropriate in the locations where there are sales or advertising of the allegedly infringing goods or services,” id., and because Plaintiff alleged trademark infringement from sales in and around the Charlotte area, (Doc. No. 1, p. 5, ¶ 20), venue is appropriate in the Western District of North Carolina.

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

BRUGH v. MOUNT ALOYSIUS COLLEGE · filed 2020-01-07(b)(2)

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

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

Miller v. Great Meadow CF · filed 2020-01-08(b)(2)

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

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

Lanier v. Centurion · filed 2020-01-09(b)(2)

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

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

Preferred Capital Funding of Nevada, LLC v. Howard · filed 2020-01-10(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Preferred Capital also argues in response to Defendants’ motion that the loans at issue in the case were underwritten in this district. (Dkt. 11 at 4.) Defendants have demonstrated that 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.

STEHLE v. VENTURE LOGISTICS LLC · filed 2020-01-10(b)(2)

Concerning venue, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) 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.” As referenced above, the incident occurred in Hancock County, Indiana, which is within the Southern District of Indiana – Indianapolis Division.

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

Ventricelli v. Nicklin · filed 2020-01-13(b)(2)

Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant Riverlife has established by clear and convincing evidence that a substantial part of the material events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the Southern District of New York.

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

TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corporation v. CVS Pharmacy Incorporated · filed 2020-01-16(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue in this Court is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to TriWest’s breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims occurred outside Arizona.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events at issue occurred, including where the relevant agreements were performed.

Africare, Inc. v. Xerox Complete Document Solutions Maryland, LLC · filed 2020-01-17(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the District of Columbia because a substantial part of the events at issue occurred here inasmuch as the lease and maintenance agreements were performed at Africare’s headquarters in D.C. See 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 claims occurred.

Bruger v. Olero, Inc. · filed 2020-01-21(b)(2)

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

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

GRAHAM v. CONNORS · filed 2020-01-21(b)(2)

Those institutions, however, are not located within the Middle District of Pennsylvania and, therefore, this Court is not the proper venue for Plaintiff to assert such claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (noting that venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”). Accordingly, any claims that Plaintiff seeks to raise regarding his incarceration at those institutions are subject to dismissal for improper venue.

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

IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. CONEMAUGH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. · filed 2020-01-23(b)(2)

Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action . occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

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

Johnson v. New York State Department of Transportation · filed 2020-01-24(b)(2)

Plaintiff filed this complaint regarding events occurring exclusively in Buffalo, New York (Erie County). Plaintiff does not allege that a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying his claim arose in this District. Venue is therefore not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1) or (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.

Keller v. Keller · filed 2020-02-03(b)(2)

Here, Keller alleges that a substantial part of the events or omissions that give rise to her claim—Kimberly’s improper influence over Richard—took place in Idaho. Thus, Kimberly has sufficiently pled that this is the proper venue for this action.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue in a district where the plaintiffs experience continuing harm if nearly all events underlying their claims occurred elsewhere.

K.O. v. Sessions, III · filed 2020-02-03(b)(2)

Since nearly the entirety of the substantive allegations in the First Amended Complaint relate to matters that occurred outside of Massachusetts, venue is improper 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.

Rowland v. Global Financial Private Capital, LLC · filed 2020-02-03(b)(2)

Thus, at least a “substantial part” of the events giving rise to the Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this judicial district so venue is proper here under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires events giving rise to the claim to occur in the district; an earlier event that merely motivated the alleged misconduct does not establish venue.

Wood v. C.O. P. Byrd · filed 2020-02-04(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s allegations merely suggest that the May 22, 2016 assault provided the motive for the conduct alleged in the second cause of action; that assault does not, however, “give rise” to Plaintiff’s claim.

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

Fortune v. Combined Communications, Inc. · filed 2020-02-04(b)(2)

As the alleged infringement occurred on the website of an Oregon company broadcasting in Central Oregon, venue is proper 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.

ROADMAN v. SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL · filed 2020-02-05(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)(2) requires a substantial connection between the district and the events giving rise to the claim; communications and financial harm in the plaintiff’s district were insufficient here.

707 G STREET RESTAURANT LLC v. JEMAL'S MICKELSON, L.L.C. · filed 2020-02-07(b)(2)

A survey of relevant cases applying §1391(b)(2) in similar contexts makes clear that venue for this dispute does not properly lie 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 claims occurred.

Carolina Recording Systems, LLC v. Posey · filed 2020-02-11(b)(2)

Moreover, Plaintiff has not shown that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this district. Rather, all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants arise out of Defendants’ alleged conduct in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, not in North Carolina.

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

Snider v. Heartland Beef, Inc. · filed 2020-01-29(b)(2)

Venue would be proper in the Central District of Illinois because a substantial part of the events or omissions took place there. See 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.

Edwards v. The Hanover Insurance Group · filed 2020-01-31(b)(2)

The underlying automobile accident occurred in Dearborn, Michigan, and the plaintiff’s claims of fraud arise from a state-court judicial proceeding in Detroit, Michigan. Dearborn and Detroit are located in Wayne County, Michigan, which falls within the Eastern District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(a). Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

McEwen v. Strickland · filed 2020-01-30(b)(2)

Venue is improper under the first part of § 1391(b)(2) because Everett conducted all his allegedly wrongful acts in North Carolina. McEwen likewise cannot proceed under the second part of § 1391(b)(2) because she has identified no Trust property situated 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.

UPMC v. CBIZ, INC. · filed 2020-01-30(b)(2)

Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

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

SHIMMEL v. NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION · filed 2020-02-24(b)(2)

Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in Clearfield County, which is in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim to occur in the district; the plaintiff’s attorney’s location alone does not establish venue.

AvePoint, Inc. v. Knickerbocker · filed 2020-02-25(b)(2)

For these reasons, the court concludes that AvePoint has not met its burden of demonstrating that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” for declaratory relief occurred in the Western District of Virginia.

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

NEXT FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. v. GMS MINE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, INC. · filed 2020-02-26(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 permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred.

HOWARD v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC · filed 2020-02-28(b)(2)

Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue where a defendant intended to influence events if the alleged conduct giving rise to the claims occurred elsewhere.

Corsi v. Stone · filed 2020-03-01(b)(2)

Even if Stone intended to influence events in the District of Columbia, the only events which give rise to Corsi’s claims—whether packaged as defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or assault claims—are Stone’s alleged statements. And those statements occurred elsewhere. For that reason, venue is improper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), the only potentially applicable provision of the venue statute.

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

Klein v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · filed 2020-03-03(b)

A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred primarily in FCI-La Tuna in El Paso County, which lies within the venue of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. While Plaintiff currently names the FBOP and various prisons, including FCI-La Tuna, instead of individual defendants, any potential individual defendants from FCI-La Tuna would likely reside in the Western District of Texas. Venue, therefore, properly lies in that district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Crosscode v. Sharma · filed 2020-03-03(b)(2)

For these reasons, too, venue is proper in the Northern District of California, 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) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

JAMES v. HOOKS · filed 2020-03-03(b)

To the extent that Plaintiff may be able to state a cognizable claim against any Defendant,” venue would be proper in the Middle District of North Carolina where the events giving rise to the claims occurred and where several of the Defendants are located.

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

Scalabrini v. PMAB, LLC · filed 2020-03-03(b)(2)

Since a substantial part, if not the most substantial part,9 of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims took place in the Northern District of Florida, and no party disputes that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida would have personal jurisdiction over Defendants, the Court proceeds to consider whether transfer is appropriate in this case.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make venue proper where a defendant’s employer has its central office when the events giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.

Toliver, Cortez v. Foster, Brian · filed 2020-03-04(b)(2)

While that may be true, § 1391(b) does not provide that venue is proper in the district of the central office of a defendant’s employer, and Toliver has not alleged that any of the defendants were working in the central DOC office in Madison; instead, he alleges that they all provided care to Toliver at Waupun.

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

Kibunguchy v. Shnider · filed 2020-02-28(b)(2)

When jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity, venue is proper in the district in which (1) any defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the same State, (2) the 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, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Because the alleged unconstitutional acts occurred in Vacaville, which is in the Eastern District of California, venue properly lies in the Eastern 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.

Sharp v. Trustees of the UMWA 1974 Pension Trust · filed 2020-02-28(b)(2)

Because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in the Central District of Illinois, this district is a proper venue for Plaintiff’s claim.

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

Harris v. Scott County · filed 2020-02-28(b)

As a result, venue is proper here under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a trademark claim occurred, including customer confusion, website solicitation, and sales in the district.

Vape Guys, Inc. v. Vape Guys Distribution, Inc. · filed 2020-03-02(b)(2)

For these reasons, the Court concludes that a “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Eastern District of Virginia, meaning venue properly lies in this Court.

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

Kruppenbacher v. Kirkpatrick · filed 2020-03-05(b)(2)

But as a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying Plaintiff’s claim occurred in Clinton County, it is clear that the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York is a proper venue for this action under § 1391(b)(2).

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

MARKHAM v. ETHICON, INC · filed 2020-03-06(b)

A civil action may be brought in a district where “a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff was implanted with the device and suffered injury in the Eastern District of Washington.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue based on a defendant’s office in a district unless events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred there.

Cherdak v. American Arbitration Association Inc · filed 2020-03-09(b)(2)

Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegation that the AAA “maintains significant offices in the District of Columbia” is insufficient to confer venue because Plaintiffs do not allege that any events or omissions giving rise to their claims occurred in that District of Columbia office.

For a claim seeking relief from a potential future transfer, venue depends on where a substantial part of the events underlying that transfer will occur.

Jackson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · filed 2020-03-16(b)(2)

Because none of the events that would underlie any potential future transfer will occur within this District, venue does not lie here.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a plaintiff to show that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the chosen district; the court assesses venue from the defendant’s perspective.

Larion v. Aircraft Service International, Inc. · filed 2020-03-16(b)(2)

At this juncture, in light of the explanation in Leroy that the appropriateness of venue must be judged from the defendant’s perspective, the Court cannot conclude that Larion made a prima facie showing that venue is proper 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.

CURRAN v. ETHICON, INC. · filed 2020-03-16(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the District of Rhode Island because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim—namely, the implantation of the pelvic mesh device—occurred in that district.

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

MOORE v. PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC. · filed 2020-03-16(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 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Belmont v. Bower · filed 2020-03-18(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). Here, Belmont’s claimed injuries occurred while he was being treated by Drs. Bower and Faulks at the Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital located in Roanoke, Virginia. Roanoke is in the Western District of Virginia, so this action could have been brought there.

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

Dwyer v. Zuccari · filed 2020-03-19(b)(2)

These ties to Maryland render this Court an appropriate venue pursuant to§ 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) requires a plaintiff suing the United States to show that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the chosen district; conclusory allegations do not establish venue.

ADAMS, NASH & HASKELL, INC. v. United States · filed 2020-03-19(e)(1)(B)

The Court finds that venue in this District is not proper under § 1391(e)(1)(B) because Plaintiff’s allegations in support of venue in New Jersey are conclusory and unsubstantiated.

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

STEWART v. ETHICON, INC. · filed 2020-03-19(b)(2)

This action could have been properly brought initially in the Northern District of Texas because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred there, including the implantation of the allegedly defective device, which occurred in Fort Worth.

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

CANCA v. AMAZON.COM, INC. · filed 2020-03-20(b)(2)

Plaintiff, accordingly, may have brought the suit in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Tollen v. Geron Corporation · filed 2020-03-23(b)(2)

Defendant Andorin does not dispute that Plaintiff has customers, suppliers and consultants in this district. Although venue would be proper in the Central District of California, where Plaintiff is located, and in New York, where Defendant is located, Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that venue is also proper in this district.

A defendant’s offices alone do not establish venue under § 1391(b)(2); a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim must have occurred in the district.

Graczyk v. Verizon Communications, Inc. · filed 2020-03-24(b)(2)

But the location of a party’s offices – standing alone – is insufficient to establish venue under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

(PC) Florence v. Kernan · filed 2020-03-12(b)(2)

However, there is no indication that any, much less “a substantial part,” of the events giving rise to this suit have taken place within the boundaries of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

Tomasello v. Greenzweig · filed 2020-03-13(b)(2)

This Court finds that, because Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing that a substantial part of events giving rise to their claims occurred in the District of Columbia, venue is improper in this forum.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, and the plaintiff may establish venue through a prima facie showing based on the pleadings.

Morelli v. Alters · filed 2020-03-18(a)(2)

Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that venue is proper in this district. The complaint pleads that a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in New York. See Compl. ¶¶ 17, 27, 33. Because the Court has chosen to rely on the pleadings, this is sufficient to make a prima facie showing of venue.

Section 1391(b)(2) places venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, including the alleged breach of a contract and the conduct underlying tort claims.

Auf v. Medford · filed 2020-03-25(b)(2)

Hence, § 1391(b)(2) is also not met and venue is improper.

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

FRANK WINNE & SON, INC. v. UPU INDUSTRIES INC. · filed 2020-03-26(b)(2)

The Court finds that venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events did not take place in New Jersey.

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

Willoby v. Mason City, Illinois · filed 2020-03-27(b)(2)

The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Mason County, Illinois, which is located within the boundaries of the Central District of Illinois. Venue is therefore proper in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim to occur in the chosen district.

Crabtree v. County of Butte · filed 2020-03-28(b)(2)

Crabtree has not established that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Northern District for venue purposes.

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

Herrick v. Clark · filed 2020-03-30(b)(2)

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

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

KIRKWOOD v. CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY · filed 2020-03-30(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges that she used the talc products in Oklahoma, was exposed to asbestos in Oklahoma, and was treated in Oklahoma, and because Plaintiff filed a previous suit ... in the Western District of Oklahoma, the Court finds that “a substantial part of the events... giving rise to the claim occurred” in the district to satisfy § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires significant events or omissions material to the claims to have occurred in the chosen district.

Nebgen v. Schentag · filed 2020-03-31(b)(2)

However, he does not allege that a significant event or omission material to his claims occurred during this October 2013 trip to Manhattan.

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

Pitt v. General American Life Insurance Company · filed 2020-04-01(b)(2)

Because, as explained, virtually none of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in this district, there is no basis for venue under section 1391(b)(2) either.

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

Ho v. Onefinestay · filed 2020-04-02(b)(2)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) 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...” Since it is undisputed that Plaintiffs allegations arise from their stay in the Apartment, which is situated in this forum, venue is proper in this district.

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

CORNETTE v. GRAVER · filed 2020-04-02(b)(2)

Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action 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.

PLINIO v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC. · filed 2020-04-08(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). This case could have initially been filed in the District of Massachusetts because Plaintiff’s slip-and-fall incident occurred in Boston, Massachusetts, thereby satisfying the threshold inquiry required under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

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

Barton v. C R Bard Incorporated · filed 2020-04-09(b)(2)

Rather, this is the location where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” because it is where the physicians implanted the allegedly defective IVC filter into Plaintiff. ... Thus, the Court finds that venue is proper in the district and division.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for a declaratory trademark noninfringement action where a substantial share of the disputed sales occurred in the district.

Nursery Decals and More Inc v. Neat Print Inc · filed 2020-04-10(b)(2)

And because Nursery Decals grosses approximately $3,500,000 in sales from its online business, 25% of its Texas sales—the state in which Nursery Decals is located—is considered substantial for purposes of venue 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.

BOLTON v. BAY VALLEY FOODS, LLC · filed 2020-04-13(b)(2)

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

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

Miller v. Roodna · filed 2020-04-14(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial connection between the claim and the district; generalized economic harm or harm to nonparties does not establish venue.

Blue Water Importers, Inc. v. Born · filed 2020-04-14(b)(2)

Further, Plaintiffs cannot satisfy § 1391(b) through allegations of generalized economic harm or by pointing to harm allegedly suffered by non-parties.

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

MELBOURN v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. · filed 2020-03-26(b)(2)

Moreover, Plaintiff originally could have sought redress for her injuries in New Jersey federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, and venue would have been proper there because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” there.

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

Gibson v. The United States · filed 2020-04-06(b)(2)

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

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

EarthKind, LLC v. Lebermuth Company Inc. · filed 2020-04-09(b)(2)

First, the Court notes that Defendants do not contend that venue in the Western District of North Carolina is improper (absent their forum non conveniens argument), and the Court finds no reason as to why venue in this district would be improper. A substantial part of the events giving rise to EarthKind’s claims occurred in this district, including EarthKind’s orders being fulfilled in this district and Lebermuth’s shipments of its products to this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (providing 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”).

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

White v. Burger · filed 2020-03-26(b)(2)

Here, because Denton County, Texas is in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, that judicial district is a proper judicial district under § 1391(b)(2).

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

(PC) Geray v. Morrison · filed 2020-04-08(b)(2)

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

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

Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc. v. First Standard Financial Company LLC · filed 2020-04-15(b)(2)

Likewise, if the complaint states a claim against FS Financial, then the allegations show that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Northern District for venue purposes.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in Kansas for a dispute over an insurance policy covering a business operating there and governed by Kansas law.

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Young · filed 2020-04-15(b)(2)

Here, an insurance policy covering a business operating in Kansas and governed by Kansas law gives rise to this suit; therefore, venue in the District of Kansas 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 claims occurred.

NORFOLK v. THE GEO GROUP, INC. · filed 2020-04-15(b)(2)

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

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

Dennis v. Aldous & Associates, PLLC · filed 2020-04-17(b)

Venue is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the conduct giving rise to the claims of the plaintiff occurred in Colorado.

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

Thomas v. Annucci · filed 2020-04-20(b)(2)

The underlying events are occurring in Auburn Correctional Facility, where Plaintiff is incarcerated. Auburn Correctional Facility is located in Cayuga County, which falls within the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Venue is therefore proper in the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Martin v. SGT Inc · filed 2020-04-21(a)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) as to Martin’s breach of contract claim and declaratory action claim 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 a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred, including where contractual performance was due but omitted.

Sinclair & Wilde, Ltd v. TWA International, Inc. · filed 2020-04-21(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which allows a plaintiff to file a civil action in which “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” The parties’ contract was to be performed in Miami, Florida. And since delivery did not occur, the omission giving rise to this suit should have occurred in Miami.

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

Vinh v. Express Scripts, Inc. · filed 2020-04-21(b)(2)

Venue is proper because a “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred” in Minnesota.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including business negotiations, delivery, malfunction, and resulting damages.

Fryburg Excavating & Trucking, LLC v. Hudco Leasing, LLC · filed 2020-04-21(b)(2)

However, this Court finds that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2)-(3). As has been thoroughly analyzed, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Fryburg’s claim occurred in this district – business negotiations occurred in this district, even if Hudco was not physically present, the machinery at issue was shipped to this district, the machinery at issue began malfunctioning in this district, and Fryburg attempted repairs, experienced downtime, and suffered other damages relating to the machinery in this district.

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

REVZIP, LLC v. MCDONNELL · filed 2020-04-21(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district because Power House Subs is located in the Western District of Pennsylvania and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the action occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

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

Spigot, Inc. v. Hoggatt · filed 2020-04-23(b)(2)

However, the question is not whether more events occurred outside of Florida, but simply whether a substantial part occurred here. See BW Orchards, LLC v. Spiech Farms Ga., LLC, 2019 WL 2635541, *3 (S.D. Ga. June 26, 2019) (“It is important to note that Plaintiffs are not required to show that a majority of the events occurred in the Southern District of Georgia; rather, they only need to show that a substantial part of the events occurred here.”). Drawing all reasonable inferences and resolving the factual conflicts in plaintiffs’ favor, the Court finds the alleged use of the trade secrets in Florida to directly compete with plaintiffs in Florida form a substantial part of the events giving rise to the misappropriation claims. As such, venue is proper 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.

Smith v. Comenity Bank · filed 2020-04-24(b)(2)

It is evident that none of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in Delaware. Clearly, they occurred in Tennessee where Plaintiff resides and where Case ID 1831787 commenced in the General Sessions Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, and where an attorney allegedly made an oral agreement with Plaintiff.

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

Northwest 1 Trucking Inc. v. Haro · filed 2020-04-24(b)(2)

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 part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

OSF Healthcare System v. Fund Administrator of the Personal Assistant Health Fund for the SEIU Healthcare IL Home Care H · filed 2020-04-27(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) permits venue for claims about confinement conditions in the district where the relevant events occurred.

Rodriguez v. Rodriguez · filed 2020-04-28(b)

Venue for allegations regarding the conditions of plaintiff's confinement at Coalinga State Hospital would be proper in the Eastern District, and not in this one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue where the district’s connections to the events underlying the claim are merely peripheral.

SmartBank v. Cartron (PLR2) · filed 2020-04-16(b)(2)

In light of these sparsely alleged and purely peripheral connections to Tennessee, Plaintiff has not met its burden to show that the Eastern District of Tennessee is a proper venue under § 1391(b)(2).

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

(PC) Williams-Turner v. Sylmar Juvenille Hall · filed 2020-04-20(b)(2)

Therefore, plaintiff's claim should have been filed in the United States District Court forthe Central District of California.

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

Williams v. Diaz · filed 2020-04-28(b)

Venue is proper because certain events giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred at 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.

Ojo v. Decker · filed 2020-04-28(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Elizabeth, New Jersey, where Plaintiff was detained during the events giving rise to his claims. Moreover, the EDC defendants most likely reside in New Jersey and any records associated with his detention at EDC would be located in that district. Venue is therefore proper in the District of New Jersey. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

DARROW v. INGENESIS INC. · filed 2020-04-29(b)

Accordingly, Defendants have satisfied their burden of showing that venue would be proper in the transferee district, the Western District of Texas, because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred; events insufficiently material to the claims do not support venue.

Carter v. Vujasinovic · filed 2020-04-29(b)(2)

Even accepting these remarkable allegations as true, they certainly do not make up “a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim[s]” at issue. ... Therefore, the allegations concerning the D.C. guardianship action “are not sufficiently material” to Carter’s claims to support venue in the District.

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

Welty v. Tonhofer · filed 2020-05-01(b)

Therefore, the Court concludes venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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.

Tay v. Baldwin · filed 2020-05-01(b)(2)

Based on the allegations in the First Amended Complaint, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district. Thus, venue is proper here.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; for a petition to confirm an employment arbitration award, the district where the employment took place qualifies.

Duffy v. Lydell Jewelry Design Studio · filed 2020-05-05(b)(2)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim” occurred in this District. This action involves a petition to confirm an arbitral award concerning a breach of Petitioner’s employment contract under New York law and Petitioner’s employment was in the Southern District of New York.

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

McCarthy v. Warden · filed 2020-05-05(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s claims arose in Portsmouth, Virginia, which is in the Eastern District of Virginia. See 28 U.S.C. § 127. Accordingly, venue lies in the Eastern District of Virginia, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for a fraudulent transfer claim in the district where the judgment the transfers sought to frustrate was entered.

WARREN HILL, LLC v. NEPTUNE INVESTORS, LLC · filed 2020-05-05(b)(2)

Regardless of where the transfers occurred, the judgment and the litigation which culminated in its entry are a “substantial part” of the events which gave rise to plaintiff’s fraudulent transfer claim.

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

Woods v. Brooks · filed 2020-05-06(b)(2)

“[v]enue may be proper in two or more districts, even though most of the events occurred in only one of the districts,” Reilly, 6 F. Supp. 3d at 767 (citation and quotations omitted). “Defendants are not guaranteed a preferred venue, only a proper venue.” Id. at 767–68 (citation and quotations omitted). Although Defendants may prefer the Southern District of Florida, venue is proper in the Southern District of Ohio. So transfer is not required.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in any district in California when class-wide allegations encompass events throughout the state.

Adams v. Newsom · filed 2020-05-13(b)(2)

Venue for this case is proper in any district in California under Section 1391(b)(2) because the class-wide allegations encompass events that took place throughout the state.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred; in a tort action, the place of injury is relevant.

David John, M.D. Inc. v. Polisky · filed 2020-05-14(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in a judicial district if “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that district. ... Accordingly, venue is proper.

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

SUMMERTIME PRODUCE, LLC v. ATLANTIC PRODUCE EXCHANGE, LLC · filed 2020-05-14(b)(2)

The same facts that support the exercise of personal jurisdiction make venue in this District appropriate because those facts show that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to” Summertime’s claims occurred in the Southern District of Indiana.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, and the plaintiff can establish venue with a prima facie showing.

Cohen v. Altman · filed 2020-05-15(b)(2)

The Court finds that the Plaintiff has met his prima facie burden to demonstrate to the Court that a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this litigation occurred in the Northern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where alleged acts in the district could independently support the claim, even if other alleged acts occurred elsewhere.

Haynes v. Haggerty · filed 2020-05-19(b)(2)

Plaintiff has thus established that venue is proper in Vermont because a substantial part of the events giving rise to her claims took place in this judicial district.

Under § 1391(b)(2), where the plaintiff was injured is one factor in deciding whether a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district.

Baylor v. Hennepin County District Court · filed 2020-05-19(b)(2)

In any event, where Plaintiff’s injury occurred is only one factor that courts consider when determining whether a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred in this district, as required to establish venue under § 1391(b)(2).

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

Gilfillan v. Bradley University · filed 2020-05-19(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 or omissions giving rise to the claim to occur in the chosen district; later medical treatment there does not establish venue.

Perrone v. Catamount Ski Resort, LLC · filed 2020-05-19(b)(2)

Thus, the significant event giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims— Plaintiff’s accident—and the alleged acts that led to that event—Defendants’ failure to adequately protect against the accident—occurred at Catamount Ski Resort, located on the border of the Northern District and the District of Massachusetts. As such, the Southern District is an improper venue under 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.

Williams v. Austen · filed 2020-05-01(b)(2)

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

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

Admiral Insurance Co v. Dual Trucking, Inc. · filed 2020-05-18(b)(2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.”66 ... As a result, venue would have been proper in the District of Montana.

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

Cortinas v. Warden · filed 2020-05-18(b)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim to occur in the chosen venue; the plaintiff’s current residence alone is insufficient.

Doe v. Board of Visitors of Virginia Military Institute · filed 2020-05-20(b)(2)

Applying these principles, the court concludes that Doe has failed to make a prima facie showingthat a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred in the Roanoke Division.

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

Bostic v. Campbell · filed 2020-05-22(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in a judicial district where: (1) any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property in question is situated; or (3) any defendant may be found if there is no other district in which the plaintiff may bring the action. ... The alleged events giving rise to this action occurred at Bledsoe County Correctional Complex, where Plaintiff himself resides.

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

Stocking v. Simonovich · filed 2020-05-26(b)(2)

Second, Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that a majority of the events related to this action, such as the negotiation of the terms of the contract, the signing of the contract, ... and the initial loan payment, all occurred in Utah. ... Accordingly, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391(b)(2) places venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; hypothetical later effects elsewhere do not establish venue.

Miller v. Cuomo · filed 2020-05-26(b)(2)

Thus, since the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in that district, venue for this action lies there.

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

UPMC v. CBIZ, INC. · filed 2020-05-26(b)(2)

Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

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

(PC) Brown v. Just Detention International · filed 2020-05-27(b)(2)

In this case, the claim arose in Manistee County, which is in the Western District of Michigan. Therefore, plaintiffs claim should have been filed in the United States District Court forthe Western District of Michigan.

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

Daker v. Redfin Corporation Inc · filed 2020-05-29(a)(2)

In addition, § 1391(a)(2), allows for venue in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or where a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated. The real estate relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, is located in Georgia (presumably in or around Alpharetta, Georgia, where the individual defendants reside and are employed). The real estate contract underlying Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, was also presumably executed in Alpharetta, Georgia.

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

(PC) Garcia v. Diaz · filed 2020-05-29(b)

In this case, the claim arose in Riverside County, which is in the Central District of California.

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

OYO Hotels, Inc. v. Maingate Worldwide, LLC · filed 2020-06-03(b)(2)

Section 1391(b)(2) requires that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in this District. ... The Court concludes Petitioner OYO did not carry its burden to establish 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.

Johnson v. Brown · filed 2020-06-03(b)(2)

Venue for the severed claims is therefore proper in the Northern District of New York.

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

Calderon v. Annucci · filed 2020-06-03(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Albany Medical Center Prison Ward, where most Defendants appear to be employed. Albany Medical Center Prison Ward is located in Albany County, which falls within the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Venue is therefore proper in the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Cruz v. I.C.M. Manhattan, NY · filed 2020-06-08(b)(2)

After reviewing the record, the Court finds no error in Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab’s conclusion that venue is improper in this District and that this action should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.”

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

Oliver v. FCA U.S., L.L.C. · filed 2020-06-10(a)

Venue is likely proper in the Northern District of Georgia under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the instant action occurred in the Northern District of Georgia. Accordingly, the threshold requirement—that the case could have been brought in the proposed transferee-court—is satisfied.