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.

Martinson v. Crete Carrier Corporation · filed 2020-10-09(b)(2)

The accident that is the basis for this suit occurred in Jackson County, Alabama, which is within the Northeastern Division of the Northern District of Alabama. Thus, venue is proper in this Court.

Section 1391(b)(2) generally permits venue for a breach-of-contract action in the district where the contract was to be performed.

Bio World Merchandising Inc v. Interactive Business Information Systems Inc · filed 2020-10-09(b)(2)

As such, the record reflects that venue is proper in this district under § 1391(b). Accordingly, the Court denies 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 claims occurred, even if the parties’ earlier contractual dealings took place elsewhere.

NRO Boston, LLC v. Arch Capital Funding · filed 2020-09-28(b)(2)

Plaintiffs’ remaining claims all arise from conduct they allege was directed into Massachusetts and which caused their Massachusetts bank to freeze their assets. Accordingly, the “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim[s]” occurred in Massachusetts and therefore venue is proper.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue for a defamation claim when publication and injury in the district constitute a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. v. HARTLEIB · filed 2020-10-09(a)(2)

Accordingly, we find that a substantial portion of events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ defamation claim occurred in Pennsylvania and that venue is proper here.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where the trusteeship giving rise to the claim was imposed.

Blevins v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Union · filed 2020-10-06(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the trusteeship was imposed 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.

BYERS v. FINISHING SYSTEMS, INC. · filed 2020-10-08(b)(2)

Likewise, venue is proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania simply because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this case, the explosion itself, took place in the Middle District.

Section 1391(b)(2) did not make Nevada a proper venue for the contract dispute.

Cupp v. Baron · filed 2020-10-09(b)(2)

Cupp has failed to demonstrate that Nevada is the proper venue for this dispute.

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

TigerGraph, Inc. v. Peak · filed 2020-10-21(b)(2)

It is plaintiff’s burden to establish venue, but the declarations and complaint are sufficient to establish that plaintiff’s place of performance under the Sales Compensation Plans was the Northern District of California and a substantial part of the acts or omissions relevant to plaintiff’s claim occurred in this district. Accordingly, venue is appropriate under section 1391(b)(2).

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

Golson v. General Motors LLC · filed 2020-10-22(b)(2)

Therefore, a substantial portion of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in the Southern District of Florida. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Because venue is proper under § 1391(b), the analysis proceeds to whether the Court should exercise its discretionary power under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to transfer this action to the Southern District of Florida.

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

Jones v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc. · filed 2020-10-23(b)(2)

Venue lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because 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 in this judicial district.

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

Martino v. The Orchard Enterprises Inc · filed 2020-10-27(b)(2)

Even assuming Martino created his music in Illinois (allegations that are not pled in the Complaint), substantial events given rise to unjust enrichment and conversion are not pled to have occurred in this venue. Therefore, venue is improper under § 1391(b)(1)–(3).

Section 1391 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.

Langford v. Beck · filed 2020-10-27(a)(2)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because a “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred [and] a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated” in this District.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, including proceedings and a court order central to the claim.

Golson v. General Motors LLC · filed 2020-10-28(b)(2)

A substantial amount of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in the Southern District of Florida. Therefore, the Southern District of Florida is a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in the District of Columbia for claims arising from prison conditions in West Virginia.

Jones v. District of Columbia · filed 2020-10-15(b)

The plaintiff has also failed to show that this venue is the appropriate forum for the claims relating to the conditions at USP Hazleton.

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

(PC) Hill v. Tyler · filed 2020-10-16(b)

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

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

Yang Wu International, Inc. v. LS & CX, LLC · filed 2020-10-30(b)(2)

However, the language of § 1391(b)(2) does not require that all events or omissions occur within the district. Rather, only a substantial part must have occurred within the Eastern District of Texas for venue to be proper.

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

Goldstine v. FedEx Freight, Inc. · filed 2020-11-02(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s causes of action occurred within the Western District of Washington’s geographic scope.

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

Webley v. The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision · filed 2020-11-05(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claim arose in this district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1), (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.

Penny v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2020-11-09(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Western District of Washington pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because 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 district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where the goods at issue originated.

Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Bra-Nu Enterprise, LLC · filed 2020-11-13(b)(2)

Thus, venue can be based on § 1391(b)(2) because Kentucky is where a substantial part of the events 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.

Mitchell v. Trame · filed 2020-11-16(b)(2)

The actions of Defendant that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims were executed in Sangamon County, Illinois, which is located in the Central District of Illinois. Venue is therefore proper in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (stating 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 district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Pets Global, Inc. v. M2 Logistics, Inc. · filed 2020-10-30(b)(2)

Furthermore, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 49 U.S.C. § 14706(d) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the asserted claims occurred within this District.

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

ROBERTS v. AMERICAN AIRLINES · filed 2020-11-04(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to § 1391(b)(2) because a significant portion of the events giving rise to the claim—plaintiff’s employment, the 2014 grievance, and plaintiff’s termination—occurred in Philadelphia.

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

Skipton v. RevHoney, Inc. · filed 2020-11-06(b)(2)

Thus, RevHoney’s counterclaims can only have proper venue in this Court if a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Missouri.

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

Bryton Properties LLC, Rockwell Series v. Cudnik · filed 2020-11-16(b)(2)

The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because complete diversity exists and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events giving rise to Bryton’s claims occurred in this district.

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

RKI Construction, LLC v. WDF Inc. · filed 2020-11-06(b)(2)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Marte v. Oliver · filed 2020-11-06(b)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the events giving rise to the complaint occurred within the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

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

Hopkins v. California Forensic Medical Group · filed 2020-11-16(b)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where allegedly defamatory statements were published and the resident plaintiff was harmed.

Adam J. Rubinstein, M.D., P.A. v. Ourian, M.D. · filed 2020-11-10(b)(2)

Under (1), the action may have been brought in the Central District of California, and under (2), the action may have been brought in the Southern District of Florida or the Central District of California.

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

Wilcox 223862 v. Kalchert 880354 · filed 2020-11-17(b)(2)

Venue for a civil action 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). ... This cause of action arose at LMF in Munising, Michigan where both Plaintiff and Defendant are currently incarcerated. ... Munising is in Alger County, which lies within the geographical boundaries of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. ... Accordingly, the Court orders the Clerk of Court to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

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

Sanders v. Missouri Department of Corrections · filed 2020-11-17(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action of this type may be brought in: “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” ... Here, plaintiff’s claims involve alleged wrongdoing at FRDC and by FRDC employees located in the Western District of Missouri.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for a defamation claim when allegedly defamatory statements were published in the district and the plaintiffs were injured there.

THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C. v. HARTLEIB · filed 2020-11-17(b)(2)

Given the weight the Court gives to the same information we relied upon before, Hartleib’s emails to Detective Goggin and Abelson, we find these events or omissions are substantial enough to find venue is proper in the Eastern District.

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

WENO Exchange LLC v. Redwood HCA LLC · filed 2020-11-18(b)(2)

Because a substantial part of the events giving rise to WENOs claims occurred in this District, the Court finds that venue is not improper in this District.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a plaintiff received the calls giving rise to a TCPA claim.

Neff v. Towbin Dodge, LLC · filed 2020-11-19(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s injury, receipt of the communications, occurred in the Eastern District, a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claim occurred here. As such, venue is proper in the Eastern District of California.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where a reservation was made and injuries were treated.

Esposito v. AIRBNB Action, LLC · filed 2020-11-20(b)(2)

As to the first step of the transfer analysis, venue is proper in the Western District of Arkansas, the proposed transferee court, because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). In particular, Benton County, Arkansas is where Allyson made the reservation for the Farm House, and it also is where Allyson and Benjamin received medical treatment for the injuries they sustained during the robbery.

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

Michaels v. Drexler · filed 2020-11-20(b)(2)

Construing, as it must, all allegations in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case that a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in New York, and that venue is therefore proper in this District under Section 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 situated.

Duval v. DeMaster · filed 2020-11-20(b)(2)

Further, the second prong of § 1391(b)(2) states that venue is proper in a judicial district where “a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... Taking all of Plaintiffs’ pleaded facts as true and resolving all conflicts in favor of Plaintiffs, the Court determines that the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division is a proper venue for this action.

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

Collision Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corporation · filed 2020-11-23(b)(2)

Although Massachusetts is an inappropriate venue, the record contains sufficient facts to indicate that New Hampshire is the appropriate venue in which to litigate this matter as it is the jurisdiction where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a tort claim occurred, including where the alleged conduct was directed and harm was felt.

Coastal Laboratories, Inc. v. Jolly · filed 2020-11-23(b)(2)

Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, venue is proper in Maryland under § 1391(b)(2) because Plaintiffs plainly allege that Defendants’ tortious actions were aimed at Plaintiffs’ customers in Maryland by, inter alia, halting shipment of test kits to customer nursing homes (Am. Compl. ¶ 72), blocking web portal access to nursing home customers in Maryland (id. ¶ 81), and using the portal’s “help desk” to solicit Plaintiffs’ Maryland-based customers (id. ¶¶ 85-86).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim to have occurred in the district; filing the underlying suit there does not alone establish venue for counterclaims.

Schubert v. Lumileds LLC · filed 2020-11-24(b)(2)

Lumileds argues that Delaware is a proper venue, not only based on personal jurisdiction, but also because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in this state. (D.I. 154 at 17, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)). ... Lumileds identifies no other events or omissions in Delaware that gave rise to its claims of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability. Thus, Delaware is an improper venue for Lumileds’ counterclaims against BU.

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

Kaul v. Federation of State Medical Boards · filed 2020-12-01(b)(2)

The court thus cannot find that the allegations relating to the District of Columbia make up a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims and venue in this district is therefore inappropriate under § 1391(b)(2).

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

HOWARD v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC · filed 2020-12-04(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 giving rise to the claim occurred.

Lewis v. Kirkeby · filed 2020-12-07(b)(2)

Even assuming that not all the defendants are residents of Washington, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in the Western District of Washington because a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that district, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

De Fries v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA · filed 2020-12-07(b)(2)

Torrington is located in Litchfield County, in the District of Connecticut, 28 U.S.C. § 86, and venue thus lies in the District of Connecticut under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Bibb v. ATT Corporation · filed 2020-12-08(b)(2)

At least some portion of the underlying events occurred in Columbus, Ohio, where Plaintiff resides. Columbus, Ohio is located in Franklin County, which falls within the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 115(b)(2). Venue is therefore proper in the Southern District of Ohio. 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.

McHugh v. Vertical Partners West · filed 2020-12-08(b)(2)

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

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

(PC) Perez v. Diaz · filed 2020-12-03(b)(2)

Therefore, plaintiff's claims should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of 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.

(PC) Perez v. Diaz · filed 2020-12-03(b)(2)

The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In this case, the claims arose in Riverside County, which is in the Central District of California.

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

White v. FedEx Corporation · filed 2020-12-03(b)(2)

Venue in the Middle District of Pennsylvania is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) as the actions alleged occurred within this District.

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

Hill v. Tyler · filed 2020-12-08(b)

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

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

Ross v. Brown · filed 2020-12-09(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for a declaratory trademark claim in a district where the plaintiff sold or advertised goods bearing the accused mark and placed the mark on goods.

Shijin Vapor LLC v. Bolt USA, LLC · filed 2020-11-23(b)(2)

Thus, venue is appropriate where plaintiff sold or advertised goods bearing the accused mark, and where plaintiff placed the accused mark on the goods or prepared advertising bearing the mark. Because there is no dispute that plaintiff performed those activities in the Northern District of California, the court concludes that venue is appropriate in this district under section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim to occur in the chosen district; debt collection communications received there did not establish venue for claims arising from a bankruptcy filing in another district.

STURSBERG v. Morrison Sund PLLC · filed 2020-12-11(b)(2)

Here, given that Defendants reside in Minnesota, the only way venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is if § 1391(b)(2) applies (i.e., if a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District). ... We are persuaded by these cases and observe that Stursberg’s abuse of process and wrongful use of civil proceeding claims do not arise out of any legal proceeding in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania—rather, they arise out of a bankruptcy petition that he alleges was wrongly filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota, to collect legal fees that Defendants incurred while representing Stursberg in a Minnesota action. ... Accordingly, we find that venue is not proper as to Counts I and II.

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

McCRIMON v. ZOLT · filed 2020-12-14(b)(2)

Plaintiff clearly complains about events occurring in Thomas County, Georgia, which is within the Middle District of Georgia. 28 U.S.C. § 90(b)(7). Thus, venue is proper in that District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires substantial events or omissions giving rise to the claim in the district; effects felt there after the claim accrues do not establish venue.

OLDHAM v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY · filed 2020-12-16(b)(2)

However, only the events giving rise to a claim may justify venue, not impacts felt by a plaintiff after an action accrues.

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

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Blakstad · filed 2020-12-17(b)(2)

In a federal question action, venue is proper in any “[j]udicial 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). As alleged in the SEC’s compliant in the Underlying Action, Blakstad’s violations of federal securities laws occurred in the Southern District of New York. Because the SEC’s potential claim to the funds arises out of that conduct, venue exists here.

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

EuroChem North America Corp. v. Ganske, Julie · filed 2020-12-18(b)(2)

None of the specific events or omissions that led to EuroChem’s suit against the Ganskes for failing to honor a personal guaranty occurred in the Eastern District. This means that transfer under § 1404 is off the table.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where a contract was to be performed and allegedly breached.

Payne v. Howard University · filed 2020-12-22(b)(2)

The District Court for the District of Columbia is also a proper venue. Venue is proper in diversity cases in the “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).

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

Berkley Insurance Company v. Bouchard · filed 2020-12-23(b)(2)

Plaintiff has thus established that venue is proper in Vermont because a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in this district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred here.

Section 1391(b)(2) bases venue on the events giving rise to the claims; other activities in a district do not establish venue there.

Chaturvedi v. Orbcomm Inc. · filed 2020-12-23(b)(2)

Further, the Court is satisfied that all of the events giving rise to Plaintiff Chaturvedi’s claims occurred in Utah, as that is where all of the discussions between the parties regarding the terms of compensation and employment took place, a fact that Plaintiff Chaturvedi does not dispute. Plaintiff Chaturvedi’s arguments regarding all the general activities connected to his employment that occurred in California, see Chaturvedi Decl., are not relevant to the venue analysis because those are not the activities giving rise to his asserted claims.

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

Nadzam v. BROAN-NUTONE, LLC · filed 2020-12-23(b)(2)

However, for the reasons discussed above with respect to specific jurisdiction, the Eastern District is not a place in which “a substantial part of the events” giving rise to Nadzam’s claims occurred. Indeed, the parties’ filings do not indicate that any events precipitating this case occurred in this District. Therefore, venue is also improper here on this basis.

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

Scott's Trucking LLC v. Navistar Inc · filed 2020-12-21(b)(2)

It is undisputed that the events giving rise to the claims of Scott’s occurred in Washington. ... And Washington is a proper venue for this lawsuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(3) (stating that venue is proper in judicial district where (1) defendants reside, (2) a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) a court can exercise personal jurisdiction).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred and the defendants reside elsewhere.

Perez v. Essex County · filed 2021-01-05(b)

Because Plaintiffs do not allege that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims arose in this district, venue is not proper in this court under § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the alleged fraudulent communications occurred.

Pierce v. Aircraft Finance Corporation, LLC · filed 2021-01-08(b)(2)

Plaintiffs justify venue solely under 28 USC § 1391(b)(2). ... Venue is likewise proper here. ... The record at this juncture shows that Ormon and Aircraft Finance employees intentionally reached out to the Pierces in Texas through phone calls, text messages, and emails, and Plaintiffs allege that these included fraudulent representations at issue in this litigation.

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

(HC)Lopez v. Robinson · filed 2021-01-12(b)(2)

Here, Petitioner asserts claims regarding events that occurred at Pelican Bay State Prison, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, venue is still appropriate in the Northern District of California even if the petition is construed as a § 1983 complaint.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where significant events or omissions material to the claim occurred, even if more events occurred elsewhere.

Williams v. Equitable Acceptance Corporation · filed 2021-01-14(b)(2)

Venue would also be proper under the general venue statute. ... Plaintiffs have alleged that significant events or omissions material to plaintiffs’ claims took place in this district.

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

Sawyer v. Mosley · filed 2021-01-15(b)(2)

Thus, the proper venue for the remainder of this case is the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

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

Sawyer v. Miller · filed 2021-01-15(b)(2)

Thus, the proper venue for the remainder of this case is the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

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

GWACS Armory, LLC v. KE Arms, LLC · filed 2021-01-21(b)(2)

Oklahoma may not have the most significant connections of all possible forums to defendants’ actions, but defendants’ actions in this forum substantially contributed to plaintiff’s claims in this case. Therefore, the Court finds that venue is proper in this forum and defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue (Dkt. # 21) is denied.

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

El-Bey v. Kansas City, Missouri Police Department and its Commissioners · filed 2021-01-22(b)(2)

To the extent the Court could determine where a substantial part of the conduct complained of occurred, it would have occurred where plaintiff resides, which is in the Western District. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue for this action properly lies in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

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

Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company · filed 2021-01-27(b)(2)

Because Auto-Owners’ denial of coverage, which occurred in Alabama, is the “substantial part of the events” that “directly” gave rise to Navigators’ claim, venue properly lies in Alabama.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires substantial events or omissions giving rise to the claims to have occurred in the district; remote interactions with customers there do not suffice when the employees worked elsewhere.

Cirillo v. Citrix Systems, Inc. · filed 2021-01-29(b)(2)

The events or omissions underlying Plaintiffs’ claims do not arise in locations where Citrix may have one or more customers with whom the sales employees interacted remotely from their Raleigh offices. Venue is improper on this basis.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where the insurance application at issue was signed.

WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. · filed 2021-01-29(b)(2)

Because the Complaint and record indicate the application was signed in New Jersey (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 13–15; ECF No. 14-13 at 4–5), Plaintiff’s cause of action arose in New Jersey. Accordingly, venue is proper here because the District of New Jersey is a district in “which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Hill v. Black · filed 2021-01-22(b)

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

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

G&C Fab-Con, LLC v. M&S Civil Consultants, Inc. · filed 2021-01-27(b)

Defendant is a Colorado corporation, and the dispute involves a subcontract that concerned work performed in Colorado. The subcontract was governed by Colorado law. Any breaches from Defendant’s alleged failure to properly survey land occurred in Colorado. Therefore, venue would be appropriate in the District of Colorado.

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

Rouse v. Harley-Davidson, Inc. · filed 2021-01-26(b)(2)

Accordingly, we initially conclude—and the parties do not dispute—that this case could have been brought in the Eastern District of North Carolina because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district when the defendants and the events giving rise to the action are located in another district.

Burnside 394665 v. Rewerts · filed 2021-01-28(b)

Because the defendants are located in the Western District and the events giving rise to this action arose there as well, venue is not proper in this district.

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.

632 Metacom, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Subscribing to Policy No. XSZ146282 · filed 2021-02-04(b)(2)

Those criteria are satisfied in this case as Plaintiff is a Rhode Island business that is seeking insurance coverage for lost income that is largely attributable to stay-at-home orders issued by the state of Rhode Island.

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 challenged policies were developed.

GARCIA-ALVAREZ v. FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (PITTSBURGH) LLC · filed 2021-02-04(b)(2)

Venue would therefore be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants are headquartered there and that is where Plaintiff alleges that a substantial part of the acts giving rise to this case occurred.

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

Jensen v. Chaddock · filed 2021-02-08(b)(2)

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

REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS TODAY, LLC v. SCIFO · filed 2021-02-10(b)(2)

Accordingly, this action could have been brought in the Eastern District of New York, the federal district court which encompasses Mineola. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2- 3)(explaining 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, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or . . . if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action”).

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

Bland v. New Image Towing & Recovery · filed 2021-02-10(b)(2)

The Chief Magistrate Judge also concluded venue was not proper in the Western District of Tennessee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because all of the events alleged in the Complaint occurred in Clayton County, Georgia, and thus within the Northern District of Georgia. ... This Court has reviewed the Report and agrees with the Chief Magistrate Judge’s conclusion regarding proper venue.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim to occur in the district; nationally accessible listings and purchases routed there by the plaintiff’s investigator did not establish venue.

BBK tobacco & Foods llp v. Ebay seller jillycut · filed 2021-02-16(b)(2)

Thus, “a substantial part of the events or omissions” must have occurred in the Eastern District of Michigan for venue to be proper here. ... For these reasons, the Court concludes that the Eastern District of Michigan is not a proper venue to adjudicate HBI’s claims.

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

C.T. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc. · filed 2021-02-16(b)(2)

Plaintiff has not established that a substantial part of events or omissions giving rise to her claims occurred in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue where the plaintiff feels economic harm if the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.

RUBIN v. MANGAN · filed 2021-02-17(b)(2)

The mere fact that Rubin experienced the harm from these events in this district is insufficient to establish venue.

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

DARRUP v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP · filed 2021-02-18(b)(2)

Ms. Darrup could have filed this case in the Middle District of Pennsylvania at a minimum because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Northumberland County, in the Middle District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391(b) governs venue for trade secret and tortious interference claims based on where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

New Berry, Inc v. Smith · filed 2021-02-05(b)

Venue for the remaining trade secret and tortious interference claims is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which allows venue in a district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

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

Marolda v. Tisbury Towing & Transportation Co., Inc. · filed 2021-02-10(b)(2)

Venue within the District of Massachusetts is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the incident at issue occurred at the New Bedford facility, which is located within this district.

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

Marietta Area Healthcare, Inc. v. King · filed 2021-02-16(b)(2)

The Plaintiffs did not set forth a prima facie showing that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. Therefore, the Court finds that venue is not proper.

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

MERIDIAN CONSULTING I CORPORATION, INC. v. EUROTEC CANADA LIMITED · filed 2021-02-22(b)(2)

A substantial part of the events giving rise to the tort claims occurred in New Jersey, and venue is proper 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.

Nam v. Tex Net Inc · filed 2021-02-12(b)(2)

The Court agrees that Plaintiff could have originally filed suit in the Southern District of California because both venue and jurisdiction are proper there. Under 28 § U.S.C. 1391(b)(2), a civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

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

Chirse v. Upstate Corr. Fac. · filed 2021-02-19(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) does not permit venue in a district where neither a substantial part of the events occurred nor a substantial part of the property at issue is located.

McFarland, Nakreisha v. Housing Authority of Racine County · filed 2021-02-25(b)(2)

To start, venue is not proper in this district under § 1391(b)(2), since the events giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the property at issue in this case is located in that district as well.

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

JACKSON v. BRIGHTWELL · filed 2021-03-01(b)(2)

The accident between Jackson and Brightwell occurred in the Middle District, so venue is proper there.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires specific facts showing that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the chosen district; conclusory allegations do not suffice.

Tuso v. National Health Agents, LLC · filed 2021-03-03(b)(2)

Thus, the narrow question before the Court is whether Plaintiff has met his burden to establish venue is proper under § 1391(b)(2) with these two allegations. ... The Court finds these bare-bone assertions unsupported by specific factual allegations are insufficient to establish venue is proper in the Eastern District.

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

Fredericks v. Detective John Doe · filed 2021-03-04(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) requires substantial events giving rise to the claim to have occurred in the chosen district; a meeting merely believed to have occurred there does not suffice.

AKURATE DYNAMICS, LLC v. CARLISLE FLUID TECHNOLOGIES, INC · filed 2021-03-08(b)(2)

It does not rise to the standard of “substantial part of the events” as the statute demands. Thus, § 1391’s requirement is not met and Akurate’s non-patent claims are dismissed for lack of proper venue.

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

Williams v. Koenigsmann · filed 2021-03-10(b)(2)

As the Court has already determined, the Southern District of New York—as well as the Western and Northern District of New York—were all proper venues in which Plaintiff could have filed this suit because significant events or omissions relevant to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in all three districts.

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

Knickerbocker v. AvePoint, Inc. · filed 2021-03-11(b)(2)

Rather, venue is proper if a substantial part of events occurred in the chosen forum.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits an insurance coverage action in the district where the underlying accident constitutes a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims.

Hoyt v. Liberty Mutual Group Inc · filed 2021-03-15(b)(2)

The car accident for which Plaintiff seeks coverage constitutes a substantial part of the events or omissions that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff thus could have brought this case in the Southern District of California.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; the plaintiff must establish that venue is proper.

Attkisson v. Bridges · filed 2021-03-16(b)(2)

At this stage, the Plaintiffs have failed to establish that venue is proper in the District of Maryland 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.

Marc Jones Construction LLC v. Scariano · filed 2021-03-10(b)(2)

The Court agrees and finds that venue is proper, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Sunpro’s claims are alleged to have occurred in Arkansas.

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

(PC) Hernandez v. Barajas · filed 2021-03-16(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is proper where defendants reside, or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. ... Because the incidents giving rise to plaintiff's claim occurred in Amador County, the Court finds it is in the interests of justice to transfer this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Local Rule 120(f) to the Sacramento Division.

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

Houston v. Stucker · filed 2021-03-17(b)(2)

Under subsection (2), the appropriate venue for this claim is in Florida because Shoulders allegedly broke the plaintiff’s cell phone in Florida.

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

Recreational Equipment Inc v. UKG Inc · filed 2021-03-18(b)(2)

The underlying lawsuit and settlement that form at least part of the basis for REI’s breach of contract and indemnification claims occurred in the Northern District of California. See supra § II.A. This is sufficient to comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Alghusain v. Nemeth · filed 2021-03-29(b)(2)

Since 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) (emphasis added), the Court finds that venue is proper in the Norther District of Ohio and improper here.

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.

Mancina v. McDermott · filed 2021-03-29(b)(2)

With regard to whether venue would be proper in the Southern District, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides, in relevant part, that “[a] civil action may be brought in . . . a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. . . ” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... The Court finds these factual allegations sufficient to demonstrate that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claim occurred in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and, therefore, the instant case might have been brought in that District for purposes of 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 a claim occurred.

Ojo v. Decker · filed 2021-03-30(b)(2)

With those principles in mind, the Court will transfer Plaintiff’s Buffalo Federal Detention Facility claims to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, and transfer Plaintiff’s immigration related claims to the Southern District of New York, as it appears that “a substantial part of the events” giving rise to those claims arose in those districts respectively. 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.

Municipal Credit Union v. CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc. · filed 2021-03-18(b)(2)

Indeed, it appears that the central factual events giving rise to the claim -- the alleged acts of dishonesty by employees, officers and directors of MCU -- occurred in that judicial district, satisfying the requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

IOU Central, Inc. v. Shore Appliance Connection Inc. · filed 2021-03-18(b)(2)

Thus, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred here. Venue is proper in this district under § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, including the corporate decision underlying a derivative action.

Sandys v. Willard · filed 2021-03-22(b)(2)

Given that management’s decision to invest in JUUL serves as the basis for plaintiff’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty, the court finds that a significant part of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s core claims occurred in Richmond.

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

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. LendingTree, LLC · filed 2021-03-22(b)(2)

None of these events giving rise to Lehman’s indemnification claims, let alone a “substantial part” of them, concern Minnesota. Accordingly, the Court finds that § 1391(b)(2) does not provide a proper basis for venue in Minnesota.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for an internet defamation claim where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including a district where the defamatory material was published and the plaintiff was injured.

de Laire v. Voris · filed 2021-04-01(b)(2)

In sum, a substantial part of the events giving rise to de Laire’s defamation claim, and his claim for intentional infliction of emotion distress, arose in New Hampshire. Therefore, venue is proper in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) generally focuses the substantial events inquiry on defendants’ conduct when the claims arise from their alleged wrongdoing.

Solidstrip, Inc. v. U.S. Technology Corporation · filed 2021-04-02(b)(2)

This court has followed other courts in this circuit holding that a venue analysis under § 1391(b)(2) focuses on the activities of the defendants, not the plaintiff. ... So the court concludes that Solidstrip has failed to meet its burden to satisfy the requirements of § 1391(b).

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

Vreeland v. People's Republic of China · filed 2021-04-08(b)

Because the conduct underlying those claims occurred at the Colorado correctional facility where Plaintiff is incarcerated, venue in this district is improper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (designating the proper venue as a judicial district in the State where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”).

For online tort claims, the district where the plaintiff suffered injury can be a proper venue under § 1391(b)(2).

Franklin Cash Register, Inc. v. Amazing Dealzzz · filed 2021-04-13(b)(2)

Here, although Defendants perpetrated their torts online, GNE suffered the harm inflicted by this conduct in Illinois, so a substantial part of the events giving rise to GNE’s claims can be said to have occurred in Illinois. Venue is thus proper in Illinois under § 1391(b)(2) and Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue is denied.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue in a district with no connection to the events or omissions giving rise to a plaintiff’s claim.

Baity v. Johnson & Johnson · filed 2021-04-14(b)(2)

As discussed in connection with personal jurisdiction, however, each Plaintiff appears have purchased, been prescribed, or otherwise obtained the device in question in his/her own home district, and there is no indication that the nonresident Plaintiffs have any connection to events or omissions relating to Defendant’s products in this district. ... Accordingly, the Court agrees that venue is improper for the six nonresident Plaintiffs.

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

Clinton-Brown v. Hardick · filed 2021-04-15(b)(2)

In determining venue, the court looks “not to a single ‘triggering event’ prompting the action, but to the entire sequence of events underlying the claim.” ... While the Browns may have been in Massachusetts when they made their offer and when they received the news from Rhode Island that the Hardicks would not sell the Rhode Island property to them for discriminatory reasons, Massachusetts is not where a substantial part of the wrongful acts giving rise to the action occurred.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims to occur in the district; one vague allegation of a communication there does not establish venue.

Lucero v. Ramirez · filed 2021-04-16(b)(2)

This solitary allegation about Ramirez does not support a finding that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to” Plaintiff’s claims against Ramirez along with three other Defendants occurred in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make venue proper in a district based on a single unsubstantial event there.

Tusha v. Greenfield · filed 2021-04-19(b)(2)

But in this case, Tusha can recount only one event that occurred in Maryland, and that event appears to be unsubstantial. This is insufficient for this Court to be an appropriate venue for this lawsuit.

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

Kleinbart v. New York City · filed 2021-04-20(b)

The major underlying events, including the hearings and other proceedings related to plaintiffs’ custody of their daughter, occurred in Brooklyn, New York, where plaintiffs formerly lived and where most of the defendants appear to reside or work. Brooklyn is located in Kings County, which falls within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Bankers Life and Casualty Company v. American Senior Benefits, LLC · filed 2021-04-21(b)(2)

In sum, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show the existence of acts or omissions in Kansas which have a close connection to its claims. ... The court concludes that venue is not appropriate in Kansas.

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

Monroe-Ricks v. United States of America · filed 2021-04-27(b)

Here, all of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims are alleged to have occurred at FCI Cumberland, rendering Maryland the proper venue for these allegations.

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

MCCLINTON v. BROWN · filed 2021-04-27(b)(2)

Construing the allegation in the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and resolving all inferences in his favor, the Court finds that he has sufficiently pleaded that the events giving rise to his claim pertaining to claims of intimidation and harassment occurred in Mebane, North Carolina. As such, Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of improper venue is denied.

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

Yuba County Water Agency v. Sobeck · filed 2021-04-29(b)(2)

Second, venue also properly lies in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Here, the State Board issued the certification in the Eastern District, which is also the location of the project.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including the implantation of an allegedly defective device and related treatment.

Mitchell v. Coloplast Corp · filed 2021-04-22(b)

Indeed, Dr. Safely implanted the ... mesh device at issue and treated Mitchell post-implantation in Fort Worth. Thus, “a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise” to Mitchell’s claims occurred in the Fort Worth Division.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim to occur in the district; mail sent to or from attorneys there is insufficient by itself.

Akers v. Siereveld · filed 2021-04-23(b)(2)

Even if Siereveld seized Plaintiff’s mailings sent to or from New Mexico attorneys, this is not enough to show substantial actions giving rise to the claim occurred in New Mexico.

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

Loper v. Broomall Rehab and Nursing Center · filed 2021-05-03(b)(2)

In this case, with respect to Loper’s claims, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” took place in Delaware County and within the venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

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

HERBERT v. POUYA · filed 2021-05-03(b)(2)

Here, as discussed above, the Court finds that Mr. Herbert has now presented evidence that ties the entire negotiation and formation of the alleged text-message contract to Pennsylvania. Thus, given the nature of the claims asserted, the Court concludes that a “substantial part of the events … giving rise to [Mr. Herbert’s] cause of action occurred” in Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Venue is proper here.

Section 1391(b) does not provide venue in a district where no defendant resides and none of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, when another district is available.

Anderson v. Butts · filed 2021-05-06(b)

As explained above, the pleadings filed by Anderson in the five matters now before the Court offer no basis for believing that this District is an appropriate district for this litigation under § 1391(b). Not one of the events at issue is alleged to have occurred in Minnesota, and not one of the defendants named to these proceedings is alleged to reside in Minnesota.

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

Stewart v. The State of New York · filed 2021-05-06(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is therefore proper in the Western District of New York.

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

Still v. The State of New York · filed 2021-05-06(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is therefore proper in the Western District of New York.

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

Middlebrooks v. The State of New York · filed 2021-05-06(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is therefore proper in the Western 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.

Cole v. The State of New York · filed 2021-05-06(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is therefore proper in the Western 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.

Napper v. State of New York · filed 2021-05-06(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is therefore proper in the Western District of New York.

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

Jacque-Crews v. The State of New York · filed 2021-05-06(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is therefore proper in the Western District of New York.

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

Herrejon v. The State of New York · filed 2021-05-06(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is therefore proper in the Western District of New York.

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

Ginnery v. The State of New York · filed 2021-05-06(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is therefore proper in the Western 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.

Thorpe v. The State of New York · filed 2021-05-06(b)(2)

Here, the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims are alleged to have occurred exclusively at the Orleans Correctional Facility located in Orleans County. Orleans County is within the Western District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(d). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is therefore proper in the Western District of New York.

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

Mora v. Westville Correctional Facility's Administrators · filed 2021-05-07(b)

Plaintiff’s claim brought against the “Westville Correctional Facility’s Administrators (John or Jane Doe)” in their official capacities is within the venue of the Northern District of Indiana.

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

Hammond v. B.O.P. Springfield, MO · filed 2021-05-07(b)(2)

Because the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiff's claims occurred in the Western District, venue is proper there.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; events in that district need not outnumber those elsewhere.

Scrum Alliance, Inc. v. Scrum, Inc. · filed 2021-05-07(b)(2)

Even if courses were offered in greater volume elsewhere, it would not mean that the alleged passing off by Scrum, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas is insubstantial under § 1391(b)(2).

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

Card Isle Corporation v. Farid · filed 2021-05-10(b)(2)

Because Card Isle performed and sustained damaged in this district, the court finds that venue is proper under the Mitrano rationale.

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 injury was felt.

Twitter, Inc. v. Paxton · filed 2021-05-11(b)(2)

In particular, Twitter's allegations that it resides in this district and that the issuance of the CID injured it in this district suffice.

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

ANDREWS v. D2 LOGISTICS, INC. · filed 2021-05-11(b)(2)

To that end, the Middle District of Pennsylvania is an appropriate venue where this lawsuit could have been filed initially as a substantial part of the events in question took place in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. See 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 a claim occurred.

Jones v. D.O.C.C.S. · filed 2021-05-12(b)

Because that is where the events giving rise to the claims involving Great Meadows occurred, and presumably where the defendants reside, the Northern District of New York is the appropriate venue for Jones’s claims against the Great Meadows defendants.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state, or where a substantial part of the events or property at issue is located.

Gregory v. Rosenfeld, PLC · filed 2021-05-13(b)

Venue is also improper in this district. ... As plaintiff has alleged, each of the moving defendants reside or are located in Arizona. A fair reading of plaintiff's complaint further supports that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiff's claims, in addition to the property that is the subject of the complaint, occurred or is located in Arizona.

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

Pankey v. The State of New York · filed 2021-05-17(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is therefore proper in the Western District of New York.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

Vazquez v. City of New York · filed 2021-05-17(b)

Venue is not proper in this Court for Vazquez’s claims arising at Attica. None of the underlying events occurred in this District, and no Attica defendant appears to reside in this District.

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

(HC) Valdez v. Cates · filed 2021-05-18(b)

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The petitioner is challenging a conviction from San Diego County, which is in the Southern District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.