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.

Inventus Power, Inc. v. Shenzhen Ace Battery Co., Ltd. · filed 2021-05-18(b)(2)

In this case, this judicial district is where Inventus is headquartered, where it originated the trade secrets at the heart of this action, and where it allegedly suffered harm as a result of Defendant’s actions. Venue is therefore proper in this District.

Section 1391(b)(1)-(2) permits venue based on the defendants’ residence or where the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Jones v. Westchester County · filed 2021-05-18(b)(1)-(2)

Venue for this claim is not proper in this district because the events giving rise to the claim took place in Cayuga County, and Plaintiff alleges that the John or Jane Doe Defendants reside outside this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2). Cayuga County is in the Northern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 112(a), and venue does lie in the Northern District of New York under § 1391(b)(2).

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

DAVIS v. CITY OF NEW YORK · filed 2021-05-19(b)(2)

Thus, because all of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries occurred in the State of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), the Middle District of Georgia—with the exception of Plaintiff’s claims against the United States—is an improper venue.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue where a substantial part of the events underlying an APA claim occurred, including events outside the agency’s preparation of the challenged opinion.

Sierra Club v. National Marine Fisheries Service · filed 2021-05-24(e)(1)

To Plaintiff’s point, this Court focuses its venue analysis not “only on those matters that are in dispute or that directly led to the filing of the action” but also “the entire sequence of events underlying the claim.” ... Indeed, the magnitude and devastation caused by the Deepwater Horizon spill is central to Plaintiffs’ APA assertions, a spill so vast it stretched into the coastal waters in each transferee district and throughout the Gulf Coast. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that venue would be proper in either transferee district.

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

Palmer v. United States of America · filed 2021-05-24(b)(2)

The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims about the conditions of his confinement in New Jersey took place outside this district, and therefore venue for such claims is not proper here under section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; preliminary communications in a district do not suffice when the alleged breach occurred elsewhere.

EmeryAllen LLC v. MaxLite Inc · filed 2021-05-25(b)(2)

In considering § 1391(b)(2), venue will be proper only if a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's state law claims occurred in South Carolina, or if a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated in South Carolina. ... In sum, as an even fewer number of the events giving rise to this action occurred in South Carolina than in Sharkninja, venue is improper over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and no event or omission giving rise to the claim occurred.

The Estate of Jean Ellyn Tuck v. CF Real Estate Services · filed 2021-05-27(b)

No event or omission giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim is alleged to have occurred in either San Diego or Imperial County, and no Defendant is alleged to reside here.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred; a tangential connection to the district is insufficient.

TANG v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY · filed 2021-05-27(b)

Substantiality under § 1391(b) turns on the “the location” of the events giving rise to the claim, not forum “contacts” in the context of personal jurisdiction. ... For the reasons discussed infra, this provision does not support venue in SDNY, but does in WDNY.

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

Coombs v. United States of America · filed 2021-05-27(b)(2)

The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims about the conditions of his confinement in New Jersey took place outside this district, and therefore venue for such claims is not proper here under section 1391(b)(2).

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

Heaton Contract Manufacturing LLC v. Noble.Com Inc · filed 2021-05-28(b)(2)

However, under § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in any district in which “a” substantial part of the relevant events or omissions occurred.

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

CMI Roadbuilding Inc v. Wiregrass Construction Company Inc · filed 2021-05-28(b)(2)

The Court does not find Plaintiff’s assertions persuasive. A substantial part of the events giving rise to the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims occurred in Alabama. The equipment and plant at issue are located in Alabama. As such, the Court finds that the action may not properly proceed in this Court.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make venue proper where mailing citations is only tangential to a malicious prosecution that occurred in another district.

ACADEMY HILL, INC v. CITY OF LAMBERTVILLE · filed 2021-05-28(b)(2)

Mailing Mr. Wilson, a Pennsylvania resident, a summons to litigate the allegedly malicious claim in New Jersey has only a tangential connection with the dispute. Therefore, under Cottman, venue is improper in this Court, and the Court will transfer this case to the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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

Sinmier, LLC v. Everest Indemnity Insurance Company · filed 2021-06-03(b)(2)

Here, Everest has asserted sufficient facts to render venue appropriate in this district pursuant to § 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.

Razzoli v. Black Lives Matter & Members · filed 2021-06-07(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Staten Island, New York. Staten Island is in Richmond County, which falls within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). Venue therefore is appropriate in the Eastern 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.

Fairchild v. Los Angeles County · filed 2021-06-08(b)(2)

Under Section 1391(b)(2), the proper venue for Plaintiff to file the Complaint is the Central District of California.

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

Shumkova v. Kerchentsev · filed 2021-06-09(b)

In this case, with respect to Shumkova’s claims, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” took place in Philadelphia 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 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

MYLIFESTYLE ACCESSORIES, LLC v. VALOR FRACTAL, LLC · filed 2021-06-11(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is appropriate in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” The alleged omissions in this case occurred in the District of New Jersey and venue is therefore 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.

Holley v. Middletown Police Dept. · filed 2021-06-14(b)(2)

It therefore appears that most of the “events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s]” occurred in the District of Connecticut such that venue in this district is proper under section 1391(b).

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

Berg v. The State of New York · filed 2021-06-14(b)(2)

The events underlying the severed claims occurred in the counties of Washington, Greene, and Clinton, which fall within the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Venue for the severed claims 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 judicial district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Jarvis v. Trader Joe's · filed 2021-06-16(b)(2)

However, venue also exists in the Eastern District of Virginia because “a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred” in that judicial district.

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

Network After Work v. Zenvoy, LLC · filed 2021-06-16(b)(2)

Weighing all of the facts and circumstances of the parties’ business relationship as a whole, see Guaranteed Rate, 264 F. Supp. 3d at 923, the Court concludes that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in Illinois.

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

Tasciotti v. Trew · filed 2021-06-16(b)(2)

Separately, a close examination of Plaintiff’s Complaint and recent filings demonstrates that the actions giving rise to this litigation occurred in Carriere, Mississippi and not in the Southern District of New York, and accordingly, venue is improper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Kaliannan v. Liang · filed 2021-06-18(b)(2)

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated,” see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Thus, we agree with the district court that venue was proper.

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

Roth v. Trump · filed 2021-06-21(b)(2)

Because all of the events giving rise to this suit occurred in the District of Columbia, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and the mutual aid agreement does not require venue elsewhere, venue in the District of Columbia is proper as to the Arlington defendants.

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

Manvi v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service · filed 2021-06-22(e)(1)(B)

Plaintiff Aishwarya Manepalli’s unreasonable delay ... claim could have been brought in the District of Nebraska because “a substantial part of the events ... or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that venue, where the applications are pending. ... 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B).

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

(PC) Ramsey v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations · filed 2021-06-25(b)

In this case, the incidents took place at Salinas Valley State Prison; thus, the claims arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiffs claims should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

Aloba v. United States · filed 2021-06-28(b)

Clearly, the Complaint shows that the District of Idaho is not the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. Rather, a district in Texas is the proper venue.

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

BONAVITO v. HARVARD UNIVERSITY · filed 2021-06-30(b)(2)

New Jersey is also not the proper forum under Section 1391(b)(2), which provides that venue may be appropriate in a district where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim in the present case occurred in Massachusetts.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) do not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Hirsch v. Miles · filed 2021-07-01(b)(1)-(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district or 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 giving rise to the claim occurred.

Hirsch v. Shammah · filed 2021-07-06(b)(2)

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

Cunningham v. Southwest Airlines · filed 2021-07-10(b)(2)

And the District of Puerto Rico offers a proper venue because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred” there.

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

Lippert v. Caballos-Galendo · filed 2021-07-12(b)

Venue is proper in Idaho because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred here. Further, it appears that all named Defendants are Idaho residents. 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.

Salas v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company · filed 2021-07-12(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. Here, the property at issue is located in the Northern District of Florida, nearly all of the acts and omissions underlying the dispute occurred there, and the parties do not contest that Plaintiff could have initiated this action in that District. The threshold requirement for transfer is met.

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

Brown v. Medical Staff at Core Civic · filed 2021-07-12(b)(2)

From the facts alleged, it is not clear that venue could lie in the Eastern District of Tennessee, where Plaintiff filed this action. The most appropriate venue for this case, therefore, is the Nashville Division of the Middle District of Tennessee.

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

Hotel Oakland Associates v. Doyle Real Estate Advisors, LLC · filed 2021-07-13(b)(2)

This case could have been brought in the Northern District of California because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [Hotel Oakland’s claims] occurred” there. 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.

Jurek v. Piller USA, Inc. · filed 2021-07-13(b)(2)

Because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in and around San Diego, the Southern District of California is a proper venue under section 1391(b)(2).

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

George & Company LLC v. Target Corp. · filed 2021-07-14(b)(2)

Plaintiff merely argues the alleged infringement also occurred in this District, but that does not defeat the propriety of venue 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.

MACK v. YOST · filed 2021-07-15(b)(2)

A substantial portion of the events giving rise to Mack’s claims occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Thus, venue is proper in this District pursuant to 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.

Nicolai v. Higgins · filed 2021-07-19(b)

Clearly, the Complaint shows that the District of Idaho is not the “judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” Rather, a district in Texas is the proper venue.

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

Tractor Supply Company v. Ace American Insurance Company · filed 2021-07-19(b)(2)

After careful review, it appears that: (a) diversity jurisdiction would exist in the Middle District of Tennessee (Doc. 15 at 7); (b) a substantial part of the events giving rise to Tractor Supply’s claims may have occurred in Tennessee (Doc. 15-1 at 7, ¶20); and (c) Tennessee has personal jurisdiction over ACE (Doc. 8 at ¶¶11–12); see also T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., No. C20-0567-JCC, 2020 WL 4788021, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 18, 2020).

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

Robinson v. LVNV Funding LLC · filed 2021-07-21(b)(2)

Accordingly, because the bulk of Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the unlawful collections attempts occurred at or near Plaintiff’s home in Madison, Tennessee, the court sustains this objection and finds that the proper venue for this action is the Middle District of Tennessee rather than the Western District.

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

Che v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC · filed 2021-07-23(b)(2)

For this reason, the Court finds venue in the Southern District of Illinois is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and this case cannot be maintained here.

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

Wiggins v. Darden Restaurants, Inc. · filed 2021-07-30(b)(2)

There is no dispute that venue would be proper in the Southern District of Mississippi because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the Plaintiffs’ claims 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.

Jane Doe 1 v. Jetblue Airways Corporation · filed 2021-08-03(b)(2)

Second, the remaining claims against JetBlue are governed by the general venue statute, § 1391, and 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). As explained above, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Puerto Rico.

Venue is proper in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even when some events occurred elsewhere.

Reed v. Newsom · filed 2021-08-04(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s remaining allegations stem from incidents alleged to have happened in prisons located in the Eastern District of California, the Central District of California, and the Southern District of California. The transfer of the case to this Court was not improper because the bulk of Plaintiff’s allegations relate to incidents which took place at RJD, located in the Southern District of California.

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

Larisa v. ADP, Inc. · filed 2021-08-05(b)(2)

As discussed, the central events relevant to Larisa’s claims took place at the Warwick office. Thus, venue is proper here.

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

Partanen v. Western United States Pipe Band Association · filed 2021-08-06(b)(2)

Here, because all defendants do not reside in the same state, the question is whether a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the District of Nevada. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... Based on Defendants’ apparent concession that venue is proper in the District of Nevada, and accepting that the WUSPBA is a Nevada entity and the communications and events connected with WUSPBA and its counsel are sufficient for venue purposes, the court finds that this action could have been brought in the District of Nevada.

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

US Dominion, Inc. v. Powell · filed 2021-08-11(b)(2)

And Dominion has easily alleged in-District conduct comprising “a substantial part” of the events giving rise to its claims: this is where Powell made numerous in-person and televised appearances in which she voiced her claims to D.C. audiences, where she rented hotel rooms and represented Michael Flynn, and where Lindell touted his relationship with President Trump and spoke at several in-person rallies. Venue in this district is proper.

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

Corporate Universe, Inc. v. Emry Capital Group, Inc. · filed 2021-08-12(b)(2)

Second, plaintiff has not demonstrated that any part of the “events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in Maryland. 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 or a substantial part of the property at issue is situated.

Schoenfeld v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC · filed 2021-08-13(b)(2)

Venue is also proper there. Mr. Schoenfeld is a Florida resident, the vehicle at issue is registered and insured in Florida, and the vehicle was serviced there on at least three occasions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (noting that a civil action may be brought in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events of omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.”).

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

Worley v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. · filed 2021-08-16(b)(2)

Under the venue statute, a case can be brought in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The collision at issue occurred in Idaho ... so the threshold question is met and the court now turns to the Jones factors.

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

Mamot v. Walgreens Pharmacy · filed 2021-08-16(b)(2)

Thus, while this Court appears to be an appropriate venue for this action, it is clear that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is also a proper venue for this action. See 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, including relevant activities the defendant directed there.

Paragon Freight Systems, LLC v. River City Insurance Agency, Inc. · filed 2021-08-17(b)(2)

In all civil actions, venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which establishes, as relevant here, that 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). ... Construing the facts in favor of the non-moving party, the Court finds that venue is proper in the District of Minnesota and will therefore deny Defendants’ motion.

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

Pillow Menu, LLC v. Super Effective, LLC · filed 2021-08-19(b)(2)

The Court thus concludes that venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) for all three of the claims asserted in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and the Motion to Dismiss is therefore DENIED to the extent it seeks dismissal for improper venue.

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

ZAHIR v. HOGAN · filed 2021-08-23(b)(2)

Because venue would be proper in judicial districts in either state pursuant to § 1391(b)(2), this ends the inquiry as the Court need not search for a proper venue when there are other proper venues available.

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

Roth v. Trump · filed 2021-08-25(b)(2)

Because all of the events giving rise to this suit occurred in the District of Columbia, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and the mutual aid agreement does not require venue elsewhere, venue in the District of Columbia is proper as to the Arlington defendants.

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

Trudell Medical International v. D R Burton Healthcare, LLC · filed 2021-08-25(b)(2)

Assuming Monaghan is subject to personal jurisdiction in, and therefore resides in for the purpose of venue, this district, DRB still cannot show that a substantial part of the events giving rise to its claims occurred in North Carolina.

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

Leonardo v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA · filed 2021-08-25(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Nassau County, where the foreclosure proceedings and debt servicing took place, and where Plaintiffs reside. Nassau County is within the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 112(c), and venue is therefore proper in the Eastern 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.

Kramer v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-08-26(b)(2)

For the above reasons, the court concludes that venue in this district is improper and ORDERS this action immediately transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

A plaintiff's residence in a district alone does not make that district a proper venue when the events giving rise to the claims occurred elsewhere.

Byers v. Garland · filed 2021-08-27(b)(2)

The mere fact that Plaintiff resides in this Louisiana district is not sufficient to constitute a substantial part of the facts giving rise to the claims.

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

WELLPATH, LLC v. EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2021-08-30(b)(2)

As such, because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [Plaintiffs’] claims occurred” in the Middle District of Tennessee, venue is also proper in that District.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue in a district where none of the events underlying the claims occurred.

Higgins v. Tru Services Group Inc · filed 2021-08-31(b)(2)

Stated briefly, it is clear from the information before the Court that all of the events underlying Plaintiff’s claims occurred in other states, specifically, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Illinois. Moreover, the employment contract at issue did not require Plaintiff to live in South Carolina or direct his work at South Carolina. Based on the unrefuted information of record, therefore, the Court finds that the District of South Carolina is not a proper venue for this action.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make venue proper in a district where no substantial part of the events underlying the claims occurred.

Higgins v. Catalyst Exhibits Inc · filed 2021-08-31(b)(2)

Stated briefly, it is clear from the information before the Court that all of the events underlying Plaintiff’s claims occurred in other states, specifically, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Illinois. Moreover, the employment contract at issue did not require Plaintiff to live in South Carolina or direct his work at South Carolina. Based on the unrefuted information of record, therefore, the Court finds that the District of South Carolina is not a proper venue for this action.

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

Cochran v. The State of Philadelphia Courts · filed 2021-09-07(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s claims arose in Norristown, Pennsylvania, which is located in Montgomery County, and in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which is located in Philadelphia County, both of which are located in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(a). Venue thus lies in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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

HE v. CAMELBACK LODGE GENERAL PARTNERS, LLP · filed 2021-09-08(b)(2)

Second, under § 1391(b)(2), the Court finds that a “substantial part of the events” giving rise to Plaintiffs’ premises liability claim occurred not in the District of New Jersey, but in the Middle 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.

Garza v. FMC Technologies · filed 2021-09-09(b)(2)

Therefore, there is no provision of § 1391(b) that properly sets venue in the Eastern District of California, but venue would clearly be appropriate in the Western District of Texas – Midland-Odessa Division under § 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; unsupported assertions do not establish either basis.

Watts v. Soloymi Inc · filed 2021-09-09(b)(2)

The test for a determination of proper venue under § 1391(b)(2) “is not whether a majority of the activities pertaining to the case were performed in a particular district, but whether a substantial portion of the activities giving rise to the claim occurred in a particular district.” ... The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing proper venue 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.

OYO Hotels Inc v. Jeet LLC · filed 2021-09-14(b)(2)

Because the Court agrees with OYO that a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the cause of action occurred in this District, the Court denies Jeet’s motion.

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

Keane v. Velarde · filed 2021-09-17(e)

On these facts, venue would have been appropriate in New York, if the case was originally filed there, solely because it is the location where a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).

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

Conradis v. Geiger · filed 2021-09-17(b)(2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), a civil action can be brought in a “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.” Plaintiffs allege that a substantial portion of the events giving rise to their claims occurred in the Middle District of Florida. (Doc. 138 ¶ 19.) As such, the undersigned finds that venue is appropriate.

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

Guzman-Cabrera v. United States of America · filed 2021-09-17(b)(2)

The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims about the conditions of his confinement in New Jersey took place outside this district, and therefore venue for such claims is not proper here 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.

Rigsby v. Marler · filed 2021-09-17(b)(2)

28 U.S.C. § 1391 provides that venue is proper: ... (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; ... Because venue would be proper in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, rather than in this District, Plaintiff, should he wish to amend his allegations, may begin anew there.

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

Jeanty v. The City of New York · filed 2021-09-20(b)(2)

As the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Brooklyn, it is clear that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for this action under § 1391(b)(2).

For a claim against a federal agency, § 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to that claim occurred.

AJAJ v. KREUGER · filed 2021-09-21(e)(1)(B)

Mr. Ajaj does not assert that either he or the Bureau of Prisons resides in this district, so his only path to venue in this court is § 1391(e)(1)(B). ... So the events giving rise to his claims against the Bureau of Prisons are the ones that were ongoing when he filed his complaint. And by that time, Mr. Ajaj was housed at USP-Allentown. ... Therefore, Mr. Ajaj's claims against the Bureau of Prisons are DISMISSED without prejudice for improper venue.

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

Reed v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2021-09-21(b)(2)

Because a substantial part of the events that gave rise to the claim occurred in the Central District of California, not the Eastern District of Michigan, the Court will, in the interest of justice, exercise its discretion and transfer the case to that district for further consideration.

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

Campbell v. XR Foods · filed 2021-09-21(b)(2)

Claims brought under the ADEA are governed by the general venue provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Accordingly, venue lies in the Western District of Washington, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Western District Georgia, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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

SUNBELT RENTALS, INC. v. EQUIPMENTSHARE.COM INC. · filed 2021-09-22(b)(2)

The Amended Complaint alleges that some of the employees Defendant targeted either worked in New Jersey for Plaintiff or were being pursued to work in New Jersey for Defendant. [See Docket No. 24, ¶¶ 54–91, 153–70.] The Court finds that these circumstances are sufficient to establish that a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in New Jersey. Therefore, venue is proper in New Jersey.

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

Beyond Capital Financial Management Group, Inc v. Byline Bank · filed 2021-09-24(b)(2)

This court finds that it is the proper venue for this lawsuit. Title 28 USCA § 1391 (b)(2) provides that proper venue may be found where the substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the lawsuit occurred.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue where a plaintiff receives medical treatment when the accident and alleged negligence occurred in another district.

Miller v. SAWA Transportation, Inc. · filed 2021-09-27(b)(2)

Because Gwinnett County, Georgia is the only place where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the Miller’s claims occurred, Miller’s receipt of treatment for his injuries in this district does not support venue in the Eastern 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.

Jerome R Kerkman SC v. D'Amico · filed 2021-09-28(b)(2)

Because the defendant resides in Arizona, venue in Wisconsin is proper only if a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Wisconsin. ... The court concludes that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this litigation occurred in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

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

Makhnevich v. Novick Edelstein Pomerantz PC · filed 2021-09-28(b)(2)

Thus, while it is clear that, under Section 1391(b)(2), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for this action, it is unclear that this Court is a proper venue.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to each claim to occur in the chosen district, even when other joined claims are properly venued there.

Stone 1 v. Annucci · filed 2021-09-28(b)(2)

Thus for none of these claims did “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occur[]” in the SDNY.

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

Kumar v. ElectrifAi, LLC · filed 2021-09-28(b)(2)

In sum, because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Ms. Kumar’s claims took place in Manhattan, and because Ms. Kumar felt the effects of her termination in Manhattan, venue is proper in the Southern 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.

Stone 1 v. Kubik · filed 2021-09-28(b)(2)

Both Albion and Lakeview are located in the WDNY. Thus for none of these claims did “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occur[]” in the SDNY.

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

VINCO VENTURES, INC. v. MILAM KNECHT & WARNER, LLP · filed 2021-09-28(b)(2)

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to show that venue is appropriate in this district as to Counts I, II, and III based solely on the test set forth in § 1391(b).

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

Hribar Transport LLC v. Slegers · filed 2021-09-29(b)(2)

As the court already has explained, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim in this case occurred in Wisconsin. ... Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

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.

Richmond v. Original Juan and Spicin foods · filed 2021-09-29(b)(2)

From the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, it appears that the proper venue for Plaintiff’s case under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) is the United States District Court for the District of Kansas since that is the judicial district where the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff=s claims occurred.

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

Bartosiewicz v. Nelsen · filed 2021-09-29(b)(2)

Because the minimum contacts test is not satisfied here, the substantial part test of § 1391(b)(2) is also not satisfied.

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

Jamie v. Parts Authority LLC · filed 2021-09-30(b)(2)

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.” Here, it is undeniable that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff Cyprian’s claims arose in Arizona where she resides and where she allegedly worked for Defendants.

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

COOPER v. CHILDREN'S BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC. · filed 2021-09-30(b)(2)

Venue is proper because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

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

El Curragh v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts · filed 2021-10-01(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Massachusetts, where Plaintiffs are incarcerated and where most Defendants reside. Massachusetts falls within the District of Massachusetts. See 28 U.S.C. § 101. Venue is therefore proper in the District of Massachusetts.1 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.

Al Sormi v. Wolf · filed 2021-10-06(b)(2)

Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Central District of California is a proper venue for this action under § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; the defendant’s contacts with the district alone do not establish venue.

PRUNKEL v. COUNTY OF BERGEN · filed 2021-10-07(b)(2)

Having determined that a substantial portion of the events occurred in New Jersey, and not Pennsylvania, this Court assures itself that venue here is proper and concludes that Defendant DeSantis has failed to demonstrate that venue should lay in the Middle District of Pennsylvania under subsection (b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district with substantial connections to the claims, even when relevant events also occurred elsewhere.

Smith v. Swaffer · filed 2021-10-07(b)(2)

These competing facts, which the Court construes in Plaintiffs’ favor, indicate there are substantial, as opposed to tangential, connections between Plaintiffs’ claims and this District, which establish it as a proper venue 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.

Campbell v. XR Foods · filed 2021-10-08(b)(2)

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

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

JOLLEY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2021-10-14(e)(1)(B)

In sum, the Court concludes that Mr. Jolley has not demonstrated that "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to" his claims occurred in this District.

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

Elshamy v. Cable News Network · filed 2021-09-30(b)(2)

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

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

(PC) Hill v. Beltran · filed 2021-10-01(b)(2)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred in SVSP, 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.

Hill v. Officer Macias · filed 2021-10-01(b)(2)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claim is alleged to have occurred in 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.

(PC) Pacheco v. Diaz · filed 2021-10-04(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 where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a trademark claim occurred, including the alleged injury to the trademark.

Moccio v. The Bossbabe Societe, Inc. · filed 2021-10-18(b)(2)

Accordingly, a “substantial part of the events” that gave rise to this cause of action occurred in Florida and within this District.

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

Kettering Adventist Healthcare v. Jade Designs · filed 2021-10-18(b)(2)

While more of the events may have occurred in one district that does not eliminate another district as an appropriate venue for the purposes of § 1391(b)(2).

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

Iglesias v. True · filed 2021-10-22(b)

Here, a substantial part of Defendants’ actions at USP-Marion gave rise to Iglesias’s claims. Without these events, Iglesias would not have filed suit. The fact that Iglesias’s claims further developed out of the events or omissions at other BOP facilities does not change the Court’s venue analysis. Defendants’ arguments regarding improper venue are rejected.

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.

Richards v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation · filed 2021-10-22(b)(2)

But Plaintiff also alleges that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred in Brooklyn, making the Eastern District of New York the proper venue for his claims under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

DAVIS v. SAMUELS · filed 2021-10-25(b)(2)

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

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

Air Vent Inc v. Powermax Electric Co Ltd Guangdong · filed 2021-10-25(b)(2)

The fact that a substantial number of events also took place in Ohio does not make venue improper in Texas. ... The Court finds that, accepting Air Vent’s well-pleaded allegations as true, it has met its burden of proving that venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas.

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

Wolf v. P.J.K. Food Service, LLC · filed 2021-10-27(b)(2)

Moreover, contrary to Harvest’s position, venue turns not on whether “everything relevant” to this case occurred in Maryland, but whether a “substantial part” of Defendants’ acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claim took place in the judicial district.

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

Premium Retail Services, Inc. v. Manhattan Capital, LLC · filed 2021-10-27(b)

For the reasons previously discussed, the Court holds that venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). The Court finds that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. Specifically, the Court finds that the Second Agreement was formed in this District and that partial performance occurred in this District when Premium received Defendants’ five payments under the Second Agreement.

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

Azzarmi v. Catania · filed 2021-10-28(b)(2)

Thus, Plaintiff may not lay venue in this District pursuant to § 1391(b)(2), which allows a civil action to be brought in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where alleged unlawful policies have a substantial connection to their effects in the district.

Green v. Perry's Restaurants LTD · filed 2021-10-29(b)(2)

Given PRL’s failure to challenge personal jurisdiction through the filing of a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss—in addition to the clear and undeniable nexus between the alleged unlawful policies and their effects in Colorado—the Court finds that venue is proper in this District.

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

Ahmed v. Miller · filed 2021-10-26(b)(2)

Plaintiff filed this complaint regarding events occurring Brooklyn, New York, in Kings County, which is located in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). Plaintiff sues employees of the New York City Police Department, which is an agency of the City of New York, but he does not allege where the individual defendants reside. The City of New York resides in this judicial district as well as in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(b), (c). Thus, while this Court may be an appropriate venue for this action, it is clear that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is also a proper venue for this action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 112(c), 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where allegedly unlawful communications were received because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there.

Tindal v. Defense Tax Group · filed 2021-11-02(b)(2)

Where, as here, the plaintiff’s claim arises from communications alleged to violate a statute, the district where the communications were received is one where “a substantial part of the events or omissions” occurred and therefore a proper 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.

Zhang v. Dragon Capital Group, LLC · filed 2021-11-03(b)(2)

For the reasons this Court determined it has personal jurisdiction over Kirkland in this matter, the Court similarly agrees with Plaintiff regarding venue and finds that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this district. Accordingly, this Court finds that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and dismissal based on improper venue is not appropriate.

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

Fredricks v. Debra · filed 2021-11-03(b)(2)

Thus, the underlying events occurred in Brooklyn where Plaintiff's other civil action concerning the same events is pending. 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) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred.

Sutcliffe v. LUFTHANSA · filed 2021-11-10(b)(2)

As Plaintiff alleges, however, that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred in Queens, under Section 1391(b)(2), the Eastern District of New York is the proper venue for his Section 1981 and state-law claims.

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

Jadallah v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2021-11-10(b)(2)

As the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims allegedly occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, in the Eastern District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 112(c), however, under Section 1391(b)(2), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for those claims.

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

Kraft v. CRH PLC · filed 2021-11-15(b)(2)

First, Mr. Kraft could have brought his action in the Central District because a substantial part of the events of which Mr. Kraft complains—i.e., his prior lawsuits— occurred 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.

Smith v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2021-11-03(b)(2)

As an initial matter, this action could have been brought in the Southern District of Florida because that is where the slip-and-fall at issue in this case occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (providing that venue for a civil action is proper 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.

Kothari v. Armenta · filed 2021-11-09(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Queens County, where both Plaintiff and the only named defendant reside. Queens County 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 in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if another district has greater contacts.

Meyer v. Meyer · filed 2021-11-16(b)(2)

When considering a motion to dismiss for improper venue under U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), a court is not limited to considering only “the defendant's allegedly wrongful activities.” ... On this record, Amy has alleged sufficient facts to show that South Dakota has “a substantial connection to the claim.”

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

BUCHANNON v. ASSOCIATED CREDIT SERVICES INC · filed 2021-11-17(b)

Plaintiff also argues that venue is appropriate in this District || because “Defendant directly targets business activities toward consumers in California and caused harm to Plaintiff within this Judicial District.” Mot. at 10:1-2. The Court agrees.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial portion of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including sales of allegedly infringing goods and resulting injury in the district.

WM. Wrigley Jr. Company v. Terphogz, LLC · filed 2021-11-17(b)(2)

Under § 1391(b)(2), “the test is not whether a majority of the activities pertaining to the case were performed in a particular district, but whether a substantial portion of the activities giving rise to the claim occurred in a particular district.” ... As discussed above, Wrigley alleges that Terphogz infringed its trademarks by selling ZKITTLEZ-branded products both inside and outside of Illinois, with the injury felt by Wrigley in Illinois. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that venue is proper in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make venue proper where a plaintiff later suffers harm when the events giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.

Roberts, William v. Gallagher, Lee · filed 2021-11-17(b)(2)

There is no dispute that Roberts’ claims, such as they are, arose from an auto accident and subsequent health care that took place in Arizona, so venue is not proper under § 1391(b)(2). That Roberts subsequently suffered a heart attack in Wisconsin is not a basis to conclude that the substantial part of the events giving rise to his 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 claim occurred.

Doe v. Power Solutions, LLC · filed 2021-11-17(b)(2)

Because both parties agree that most of the events leading to this action—namely the numerous instances of alleged sexual harassment and the eventual sexual assault—occurred in Herndon, Doe could have elected to bring suit in the Eastern District of Virginia.

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

Talbott v. Credit Acceptance Corp. · filed 2021-11-17(b)(2)

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

We CBD, LLC v. Planet Nine Private Air, LLC · filed 2021-11-23(b)(2)

For the reasons set forth above, the Court also finds that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Charlotte, North Carolina and venue is proper in the Western District of North Carolina.

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

Wasi v. Experian · filed 2021-11-23(b)(2)

Plaintiff also fails to allege any facts showing that that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims arose in this federal judicial district. Thus, venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) bases venue on where a substantial part of the defendant’s relevant conduct occurred; the plaintiff’s activities and the place where the plaintiff felt the effects do not establish venue.

Russo v. BarnardCase electronically transferred to USDC for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. · filed 2021-11-29(b)(2)

Looking at Barnard’s alleged conduct, it is clear that not only is venue improper in Texas but that the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred substantially in Illinois.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; allegations that the decedent worked in another district did not establish venue in the chosen district.

Jenkins v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company · filed 2021-11-29(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the judicial district where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Here, the complaint alleges that Jenkins’ father worked in Montgomery, Alabama, which sits within the Middle District of Alabama, and it does not establish that a substantial part of the events giving rise to suit occurred in the Northern District of Alabama.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for a tort claim in a district where the plaintiffs felt the alleged injury.

Carlson v. Colorado Center for Reproductive Medicine, LLC · filed 2021-11-23(b)(2)

Here, with respect to plaintiffs’ tort-based claims, the Court finds venue in the Northern District of California is proper. In particular, plaintiffs’ allegations that they reside in this district and that defendants’ actions caused them injury in this district suffice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (providing venue proper in “district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”); Myers v. Bennett Law Offs., 238 F.3d 1068, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding “substantial part” of events giving rise to tort claim occurs in district where plaintiff alleges “harms” were “felt”).

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

Lewis v. Delmar · filed 2021-12-03(b)(2)

In addition, because Plaintiffs’ claims have also arisen, in substantial part, in Seneca County, which lies in the Western District of New York, see § 112(d), the United States District Court for the Western District of New York is also a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

LeGarie v. Nurse · filed 2021-12-06(b)(2)

Therefore, the Court concludes that venue is proper in this district under § 1391(b)(2).

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

Wasi v. TransUnion · filed 2021-12-06(b)(2)

Plaintiff also fails to allege any facts showing that that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims arose in this federal judicial district. Thus, venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Graham v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2021-12-06(b)(2)

As the alleged events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, in the Eastern District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 112(c), however, under Section 1391(b)(2), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for those claims.

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

Eusner v. Sullivan · filed 2021-12-07(b)(2)

Despite the Sullivan’s arguments to the contrary [see R. 9 at 2], the record before the Court at this early stage in the litigation indicates that venue is also proper in the Eastern District of Kentucky because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue when the pleaded facts show that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district.

Wright v. Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2021-12-10(b)(2)

The Court finds that Mr. Wright has pleaded sufficient facts from which the Court can conclude that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claim occurred in North Little Rock, Arkansas.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if a forum-selection clause names another court.

BENSALEM LODGING ASSOCIATES LLC v. HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, LLC · filed 2021-12-10(b)(2)

An action filed in a venue that is not the venue specified in a forum-selection clause is not automatically an improper venue, Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 59, as 28 U.S.C. § 1391 allows a civil action to 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.”

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

Noboa v. Quality Homes USA Inc. · filed 2021-12-14(b)(2)

A civil action may be brought in, among other districts, a district “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Because the allegations in the Complaint center on Nassau County, New York, which is within the Eastern District of New York, and Plaintiff did not specifically allege any conduct within the Southern District, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be transferred. ... Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case be transferred to the Eastern District of New York.

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

(PC) Bradford v. Clark · filed 2021-11-30(b)(2)

In this case, the claim arose in Los Angeles County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court ... for the Central District of California.

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

Davis v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2021-12-14(b)

The acts complained of occurred at North Kern State Prison which lies within the venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Venue, therefore, properly lies in that district and not in this one. 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 the property at issue is situated.

Morcor Financial, LLC v. Lucida Construction Company, LLC · filed 2021-12-17(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Southern District of Alabama. A “substantial part of the events or occurrences giving rise” to the claims in the arbitration occurred in Washington County, Alabama and the property that is the subject of the action, the charter school, is situated in Washington County, Alabama. 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 another district is more appropriate.

DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE- TRANSFERRED TO CAMDEN - NEW CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-cv-9959 · filed 2021-12-20(b)(2)

The Court finds that Defendant has raised sufficient New York contacts to render New York “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).

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

Kim v. Joong-Ang Daily News California, Inc. · filed 2021-12-20(b)(2)

It is therefore eminently reasonable for venue to lie in the Southern District of New York, the place where the alleged threats occurred.

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

Taylor v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. · filed 2021-12-20(b)(2)

Plaintiff filed this complaint regarding events occurring in Texas. Venue is therefore not proper in this District under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where alleged discrimination was applied to the plaintiff.

Doe v. Spahn · filed 2021-12-21(e)(1)(B)

The Peace Corps utilized recruiters in this district and, while the challenged decisions may have occurred elsewhere, it applied its medical-clearance policies to the plaintiff in this district and sent medical non-clearance correspondence to her here. Accordingly, venue is proper here because a substantial part of the alleged discrimination occurred here.

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

Asskia v. Wright · filed 2021-12-22(b)(2)

Plaintiff also has not established venue under § 1391(b)(2) as he has not alleged that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district.

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

Lewis v. Lewis Electric LLC · filed 2021-12-27(b)

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all or a substantial part of the events at issue, including the contractual relationships and at least some of the relevant business activities, occurred in this district.

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

Jose-Nicolas v. Wexford Inc. · filed 2022-01-02(b)(2)

It may well be that more relevant events took place at Menard, but section 1391(b)(2) does not require a majority of the events to have taken place in a district, but rather a substantial portion.

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

ABIRA MEDICAL LABORATORIES, LLC v. Karim · filed 2022-01-05(b)(2)

Even though Karim was located in Missouri when she allegedly asked Myles, Brown, and Rox for customer information, they accessed the confidential customer information from the Pennsylvania headquarters, so a “substantial portion” of the unfair competition claim took place in this judicial district.

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

Coinbase, Inc. v. Modern Font Applications LLC · filed 2022-01-06(b)(2)

At minimum, venue is proper in the Northern District because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred here.