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.

Ramrattan v. The State of New York · filed 2022-01-06(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Eastern New York Correctional Facility, where Plaintiff is incarcerated, where the individual defendants work, and where relevant witness and documents are likely located. Eastern New York Correctional Facility is located in Ulster County, which falls within the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Venue is therefore proper in the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Ulanov v. New York State Board of Elections · filed 2022-01-06(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges that the events and occurrences giving rise to his claims took place in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for this action under § 1391(b)(2).

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

McCurty v. Madsen · filed 2021-12-20(b)(2)

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

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

Jarrell v. International Paper Company · filed 2022-01-03(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Bogalusa, Louisiana, which is within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Louisiana.

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

Slocum v. International Paper Company · filed 2022-01-03(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Bogalusa, Louisiana, which is within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Louisiana.

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

Sanders v. International Paper Company · filed 2022-01-03(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Bogalusa, Louisiana, which is within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Louisiana.

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

Hernandez v. Spano · filed 2022-01-04(b)(2)

Thus, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

When claims arise solely from an accident, a substantial part of the events giving rise to them occurs in the district where the accident took place.

BURNS v. SHAMA EXPRESS, L.L.C. · filed 2022-01-13(b)(2)

When a plaintiff’s claims arise solely from an accident, a “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise” to those claims occurs in the district where the accident takes place.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue for a trademark claim merely because an allegedly infringing website is accessible in the district; the defendant must have acted in or directed conduct toward the district.

48th Restaurant Associates LLC v. Avra Hospitality LLC · filed 2022-01-24(b)(2)

Section 1391(b)(2) provides for venue 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). ... Plaintiff nowhere alleges that Defendants ever did anything with the AH Mark in or aimed at New York. As such, I cannot find that a “substantial part” of any conduct at issue took place within this district.

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

Sinibaldi v. Jaddou (CONSENT) · filed 2022-01-11(e)(1)(B)

The decisonmaking process for adjudicating Plaintiffs’ visa applications occurs in USCIS service centers and field and regional offices, and any delay or improper denial—that is the “events or omissions” giving rise to their claims—occurred in the judicial districts covering those offices. Thus, Plaintiffs could have brought their claims in those judicial districts.

Section 1391(b) makes venue proper where the events giving rise to the claims allegedly occurred.

(PC) Taylor v. Hammoudeh · filed 2022-01-13(b)

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

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state, or in a district where the events giving rise to the suit occurred.

Morningstar v. St. Dominic-Jackson Memorial Hospital · filed 2022-01-13(b)

Proper venue in federal court is: (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; or (2) a judicial district in which the events occurred; or (3) if there is no other proper district – any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Venue is proper in that district, and the case will be transferred to that court.

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

Estate of Silvestre Quebrado v. Macquarie Corporate and Asset Funding, Inc. · filed 2022-01-21(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Southern District of Texas under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) requires a substantial connection between the district and the events, omissions, or property at issue; related litigation and the effects of an agency decision alone do not establish venue.

Friends of the Earth v. Haaland · filed 2022-01-20(e)(1)(B)

Accordingly, Louisiana fails to meet its burden of showing that “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 the Western District of Louisiana. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(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.

Hooli v. Mitcham · filed 2022-01-31(b)(2)

In addition, venue is improper because a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise” to Plaintiffs claims did not occur in Delaware.

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

Reid v. Exelon Corporation LLC · filed 2022-01-31(b)(2)

Second, because Plaintiff alleges no facts showing that a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claims occurred within this federal judicial district, this court is not 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.

Ross v. Dept. of the Army, US Army Reserve · filed 2022-01-31(b)(2)

As to Plaintiff’s claims under the ADEA and the FMLA, Plaintiff does not allege any facts suggesting that a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claims occurred within this federal judicial district. Thus, this court is not a proper venue under Section 1391(b)(2) for claims brought under those statutes.

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

Finnegan v. Uber Technologies Inc. · filed 2022-01-31(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred in Washington, D.C. (id. at 4), however, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a proper venue for this action 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 claims occurred.

Noble Bottling, LLC v. Hull & Chandler, P.A. · filed 2022-02-01(b)(2)

These facts confirm that a “substantial” part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred (or should have occurred) in North Carolina.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including property inspection and communications directed into the district.

Mills v. Allied Trust Insurance Co · filed 2022-02-04(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue is proper in this court 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.

Grant v. Adult Protective Service · filed 2022-02-04(b)(2)

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 a proper venue for this action. See §§ 112(c), 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) places venue for a negligence claim where a substantial part of the events giving rise to it occurred; medical treatment in another district does not establish venue there.

TERRANOVA v. ST. JOHN PROPERTIES INC. · filed 2022-02-08(b)(2)

In sum, Defendant does not reside in this District, Harford County, Maryland is the only place where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the Plaintiffs’ claims occurred and where a substantial part of the property that is the subject of this action is situated, and this matter could have been brought in the District of Maryland.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, which may include the district where a plaintiff resides and experienced the disputed credit-reporting events.

Wasi v. Equifax · filed 2022-02-08(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff resides in Kings County, the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims could be said to have occurred there, and venue is thus proper in the Eastern District of New York 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.

Beyond Bespoke Tailors, Inc. v. Barchiesi · filed 2022-02-11(b)(2)

I find that the Southern District of New York is “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), and Plaintiffs have thus carried their burden of proving proper venue.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim to have occurred in the district; a defendant’s contacts with the state alone do not establish venue.

United States of America and State of New York, ex rel. Patrick Donohue v. Richard Carranza, et.al. · filed 2022-02-14(b)(2)

In order for venue to be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), “a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim” against them must have occurred in this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Plaintiff has made no such showing.

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

Vann v. Plano Independent School District · filed 2022-02-14(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this action because “a substantial part of the events or omissions” giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Eastern District of Texas.

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

Learning Evolution, LLC v. CPG Catnet Incorporated · filed 2022-02-16(b)(2)

First, as evidenced by the lack of specific personal jurisdiction over any of the Defendants, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims did not occur 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.

Wright v. Gallik · filed 2022-02-16(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including alleged fraudulent meetings and calls directed to that district.

Thani A.T. Al Thani v. Hanke · filed 2022-02-17(b)(2)

Because the Court finds that venue is proper in this District under section 1391(b)(2), Roy- Haeger’s motion to dismiss for improper or wrong venue under Rule 12(b)(3) and section 1406(a) is denied.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim to occur in the district; work performed there does not establish venue when the alleged failures to pay and assign funds occurred elsewhere.

Modular Steel Systems Inc. v. Grossman · filed 2022-02-18(b)(2)

So the omissions giving rise to Modular Steel’s claims occurred in New York, not Pennsylvania. ... Accordingly, this case does not fall within the second category in § 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.

Warner v. Surefox Consulting LLC · filed 2022-02-22(b)(2)

Second, venue is proper as to each claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). As explained 2 above, a significant number of the unlawful employment practices predicating Plaintiff’s claims 3 occurred in the Northern District of California. Thus, it is also true that “a substantial part of the 4 events or omissions giving rise to the claim[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), occurred in the Northern 5 District. Indeed, Defendants only focus on the Title VII venue provision in their briefing, and 6 make no argument that venue for any claim would be improper under the general venue statute.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue where a related event occurred if the alleged acts giving rise to the claim occurred in another district.

Bowes-Northern v. Choices Hotel International · filed 2022-02-22(b)(2)

In the § 1983 claims, the Plaintiff names no defendants who are residents of the State of Indiana. He lists the same Illinois address for Defendant Illinois Department of Children Services and the three employees. See Proposed Summons 1, 4–6, 8, ECF No. 1-2. Although the bedbug bite occurred in Indiana, it appears from the allegations of the Complaint that actions of the governmental defendants supporting the Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims occurred within the geographic boundaries of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) venue is not proper in this District; however, it appears that this case could have been filed in the Northern District of Illinois.

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

IbnTalal v. The Supreme Court of New York County · filed 2022-02-24(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Suffolk County, New York, where Plaintiff and most of the defendants reside, and where witnesses and evidence are likely located. Suffolk County is located 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 giving rise to a claim occurred, including where trade secrets were developed and accessed.

New York Packaging II LLC v. Mustang Marketing Group LLC · filed 2022-03-01(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s argument that its trade secrets were developed and accessed from this District, alone, is sufficient for venue.

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

Hetland v. Hirsch · filed 2022-03-04(b)(2)

Hetland correctly argues that venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(ii) because Hetland worked for Outlaw Roadside Service within the jurisdictional boundaries of this district.

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

HARDWICK v. CONSUMER GUARDIAN SPECIALISTS, LLC · filed 2022-03-07(b)(2)

Under § 1391(b)(2), venue also does not lie here because no “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

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

Jallow v. Wells Fargo & Co. · filed 2022-02-22(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Seattle, Washington, and Plaintiff sought relief from the state Division of Human Rights. Seattle is located in King County, which falls within the Western District of Washington. See 28 U.S.C. § 128(b). Venue is therefore proper in the Western District of Washington. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits dismissal without prejudice of claims arising from events in another district.

Anderson v. Dye · filed 2022-03-02(b)

The Complaint addresses incidents that were alleged to have occurred at Maury CI and Central Prison, both of which are located in the Eastern District of North Carolina. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Accordingly, these claims are dismissed without prejudice, and the Court will only review the incidents that were alleged to have occurred after the Plaintiff arrived at Alexander CI.

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

Hill v. Weaver · filed 2022-03-10(b)

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

Hairston v. Sparks · filed 2022-02-23(b)

Venue for Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Jackson, Crawford, and Bowen is therefore proper in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Jordan v. US Bureau of Prisons · filed 2022-02-25(e)(1)(B)

BOP seeks transfer of this matter, contending that venue is proper in the District of Arizona under 28 U.S.C. §1391, because the crux of the Plaintiff’s claims arise from challenges to actions and determinations rendered by officials and staff at USP Tucson. See MTT Memorandum (“MTT Mem.”), ECF No. 10, at 5–6. The Court agrees that, aside from the brief involvement of the NIAA and WXR (the latter of which is, incidentally, not located in this District), every single occurrence giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at USP Tucson, by individuals located at USP Tucson. Therefore, at the outset, the Court finds that this case could have been properly brought in the District of Arizona.

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

Kane v. City of New York · filed 2022-03-04(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to her claims occurred in Queens County, venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York. See § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in any district where substantial events material to the claims occurred, even if material events also occurred elsewhere.

Cricut v. Enough For Everyone · filed 2022-03-16(b)(2)

Even though some events material to Plaintiff’s claim occurred outside the District of Utah, “venue is not limited to the district with the most substantial events or omissions,” but is proper in any district where substantial events material to Plaintiff’s claims occurred.31 For these reasons, venue is proper in the District of Utah.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, and more than one district may qualify.

Santana v. Exodus Transitional Community, Inc. · filed 2022-03-22(b)(2)

Thus, while this court may be a proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1391(b)(2), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is also a proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims under that provision.

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

Dooley v. Nevada Gold Mines LLC · filed 2022-03-23(b)(2)

As a result, “a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred” in Elko and Eureka counties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Thus, this action “might have been brought” in the Northern Division.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including alleged misrepresentations communicated into the district.

Sell v. Young · filed 2022-03-28(b)(2)

Because Sell plausibly alleges that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Northern District, 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.

Briggs v. Juul Labs Inc. · filed 2022-03-29(b)(2)

The complaint’s allegations establish that a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred in the Eastern District of North Carolina where Ms. Briggs worked the entire time at issue in her complaint.

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

Precision Wellness, LLC v. Demetech Corporation · filed 2022-03-30(b)(2)

Venue is further improper because, as discussed above, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims did not occur here.

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

Dickson v. Albany Family Court · filed 2022-03-25(b)(2)

Venue for Plaintiff’s claims is therefore proper under section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of New York, where all of her claims arose.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; subsection (b)(3) permits venue based on personal jurisdiction if no district qualifies under the other provisions.

Mountain East Conference v. Franklin University · filed 2022-03-29(b)(2)-(3)

The Court analyzed in Section IV.a. that Defendants have availed themselves of the forum state by their actions and involvement in West Virginia, including years’ worth of events and/or omissions giving rise to the breach of contract claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)-(3) are both easily met here.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where the defendant’s conduct gives the district a substantial connection to the claims, even if another district has more contacts.

Federal Trade Commission v. BINT Operations LLC · filed 2022-03-31(b)(2)

Taken together, the Court determines that defendants’ actions are sufficient to satisfy § 1391(b). For these reasons, the Court determines that venue is proper for all defendants and all claims in the Eastern District of Arkansas in this case pursuant to § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires substantial events material to the claim to have occurred in the district; contract communications in a district do not establish venue there for a negligence claim arising from conduct elsewhere.

Bridge Crane Specialists, LLC v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc. · filed 2022-04-01(b)(2)

Applying the appellate court’s analysis in Bartile, the Court notes that Bridge Crane’s Complaint does not allege breach of contract, which would arguably support its position that venue is proper in this district. Instead, its sole claim against TNT is for negligence, which—according to the Complaint—occurred at a construction site in Austin. Accordingly, the Court concludes that venue for this case does not lie in the Northern District of Oklahoma.

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

Michigan Welfare Rights Organization v. Trump · filed 2022-04-01(b)(2)

The Court agrees with Defendants that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims” occurred in Detroit, Michigan, and this case could have been brought 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.

Watson v. State of Connecticut · filed 2022-04-05(b)(2)

A civil action not founded solely on diversity of citizenship is properly 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 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). ... Here, it appears that the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in Manchester, Connecticut and, more particularly, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

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

STURSBERG v. Morrison Sund PLLC · filed 2022-04-06(b)(2)

For the reasons discussed in this Court’s prior Memorandum, the Court agrees with Morrison Sund that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Stursberg’s abuse of process and wrongful use of civil proceedings claims did not occur 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.

Flores v. Faison · filed 2022-04-07(b)(2)

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

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

Velez v. Paredez · filed 2022-04-12(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred in this District, venue is improper in this District under Section 1391(b)(2). A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at Clinton Correction Facility, which is located in in the Northern District of New York. Venue is therefore proper in the Northern District of New York 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.

Bonet v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision · filed 2022-04-13(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Western District of New York, 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) requires facts connecting a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim to the judicial district; allegations placing those events somewhere in the state do not establish venue in that district.

Rodriguez v. Veridian Healthcare LLC · filed 2022-04-13(b)(2)

But, the complaint contains no such factual allegations, stating only that Plaintiff is a “citizen of New York State,” viewed Defendants’ marketing materials and purchased the products in New York State, and had the products shipped to her home in New York State. ... The Court cannot, accordingly, conclude that venue is proper in this district based on the complaint’s factual allegations.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue for a trademark claim merely because the defendant’s website is accessible in the district.

Munson v. Legal One Law Group · filed 2022-04-18(b)(2)

The fact that a website is accessible within the district where an action is brought is not, by itself, enough to establish that venue is proper there. ... For these reasons, the Court finds that venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Bazelais v. New York State Department of Corrections Community Supervision · filed 2022-04-19(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Coxsackie Correctional Facility, which is located in Greene County, in the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Venue is therefore proper in the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make a district a proper venue for claims arising from events outside it merely because unrelated events occurred there.

Lowe v. Day & Zimmerman · filed 2022-04-20(b)(2)

Though a substantial part of the events or omissions related to Lowe’s termination from employment at Plant Farley occurred in Alabama, the events or omissions related to Lowe not being called back for work after completing the project at Plant Vogtle occurred outside Alabama. ... The court agrees that claims related to Lowe’s dispute following his work at Plant Vogtle in Georgia are not in the 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.

Graceland v. Plutus Enterprises LLC · filed 2022-04-25(b)(2)

Section 1391(b)(2) does not apply either because no “substantial part of the events” giving rise to the claims occurred in this district, given that Verrengia has disproven the allegations that he lived and did business in this district.

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

Frazier v. Eagle Air Med Corporation · filed 2022-05-02(b)(2)

However, the Court finds that the events that allegedly took place in North Dakota leading to the Underlying Action are not substantial enough to find venue proper under Section 1391(b)(2).

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.

Humphrey v. The CDC · filed 2022-05-10(b)(2)

Further, there are no allegations that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the Western District of New York, that a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated in the Western District of New York, or any other apparent basis supporting 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.

Blanton v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. · filed 2022-05-19(b)(2)

Thus, for venue to be proper in this Court, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims must have occurred in the Western District of Kentucky. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish that venue is proper in this Court.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where servers containing allegedly misappropriated data are located when a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there.

American Airlines, Inc. v. Red Ventures LLC · filed 2022-05-20(b)(2)

American provides sworn declaration testimony that this member data is housed on servers in Fort Worth, Texas. ECF No. 24 at 27–28. The Court thus concludes that venue is proper in this District because a substantial part of the events giving rise to American’s claims occurred in this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

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

Bahena v. Ramirez · filed 2022-05-23(b)

In this case, the claim arose 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 where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred.

Xi-Amaru v. Xi-Amaru · filed 2022-05-24(b)(2)

Upon de novo review of the record, the Report, and the applicable law, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that venue is improper in this district. ... Moreover, as stated in more detail by the Magistrate Judge, the connection of Plaintiff’s claims to Georgia “so far predominates over those in [South Carolina] as to make it impossible to conclude that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.”

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

Burley v. Weller · filed 2022-05-25(b)(2)

The Court dismisses the Oaks and Ionia Defendants and not the Parnall Defendants—though they are named first in the complaint—because venue over the first forty-three Defendants is not proper in this District. The determination of the proper venue for a civil action in federal court is generally governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Relevant here, the statute provides that a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides; or (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

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

Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Rugged Entrepreneur, LLC · filed 2022-05-26(b)(2)

As to whether venue would be proper in the Southern District of Ohio, EMI’s argument that some of RE’s infringing activities occurred in Florida does not preclude a finding that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the trademark infringement claims occurred in Ohio.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue in a district with no substantial connection to the events giving rise to the claims.

Jenkins v. Tadlock · filed 2022-05-31(b)(2)

Accepting the allegations as true, the claims here bear no relation to New Mexico. They arise from events that took place in the Colorado Jail. Subsection (2) therefore does not establish venue is proper.

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

Trent v. Peddycoart · filed 2022-05-31(b)(2)

While it is unclear whether this Court would be an appropriate venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Suffolk County, it is clear that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a connection between the claim and the particular district; a general allegation of harm within the state does not establish venue there.

Immanuel v. Cooper · filed 2022-05-31(b)(2)

In sum, it is not enough for Dr. Immanuel to assert generally that she suffered damages in Texas; she must connect the facts and allegations behind her claim to the Eastern District of Texas. She did not do so. In the absence of such evidence, the Court cannot find that venue is proper here 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.

Cabinets To Go, LLC v. Qingdao Haiyan Group Co., LTD · filed 2022-06-06(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. As the Court has already explained, a substantial part of the events giving rise to CTG’s claims occurred in this district. See supra Section III.A.1. Accordingly, this Court is an appropriate venue for this lawsuit.

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

Booker v. Doe · filed 2022-06-13(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that Defendants reside in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at WCF, venue would also be proper in the Northern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Taylor v. United States · filed 2022-06-08(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in the District of New Jersey, venue in the Eastern District of New York 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.

Lojo v. Lopez · filed 2022-06-16(b)(2)

Venue therefore does lie in the District of New Jersey under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Veal v. Forsyth County Sheriff's Office · filed 2022-06-21(b)(2)

Plaintiff complains about events occurring in Forsyth County, Georgia, which is within the Gainesville Division of the Northern District of Georgia. 28 U.S.C. § 90(a)(1). Thus, venue is proper 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.

Tshiamala v. Cohen · filed 2022-06-27(b)(2)

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

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

Stamper v. Freebird Logistics Incorporated · filed 2022-06-28(b)(2)

Therefore, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” occurred in this district so venue is proper, and the Court finds it has personal jurisdiction over the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(ii).

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

Lurch v. Exodus Transitional Services (New York) · filed 2022-06-29(b)(2)

Venue under Section 1391(b)(2) is therefore not proper in this district but is proper in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Lehrer v. J&M Monitoring, Inc. · filed 2022-07-01(b)(2)

The former references are entirely irrelevant, while the final reference bears not at all on the question of where “the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (emphasis added). ... In sum, the Court cannot find that venue is proper in the Southern District of New York for Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

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

McCoy v. McCormick · filed 2022-07-05(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to transfer this case to the Middle District of Louisiana, where a substantial part of the alleged events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where an accident occurred when the coverage dispute turns on facts of that accident, even if the insurance policy was issued elsewhere.

Progressive American Insurance Company v. De Pinto · filed 2022-07-05(b)(2)

Progressive’s liability under this insurance policy depends on disputed facts that occurred in this District, not on contract interpretation. Therefore, venue is proper in the Western District.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial connection between the forum district and the events or omissions giving rise to the claims; a plaintiff’s location and economic harm there do not alone establish venue.

Letskus v. KVC Group, LLC · filed 2022-07-06(b)(2)

For these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing that venue is proper 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, even if venue may also be proper elsewhere.

Hoti v. Bureau of Prisons · filed 2022-07-08(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that Defendants reside in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at USP Coleman II, venue would also be proper in the Middle District of Florida 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.

Atanuspour v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company · filed 2022-07-15(b)(2)

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

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

Sarner v. Fillas · filed 2022-07-15(b)(2)

Venue is therefore proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York, where the claims arose.

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

Jenkins v. Jeffries · filed 2022-07-19(b)

Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Mr. Jenkins’ claims occurred 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.

Sarner v. NYPD 75pct · filed 2022-07-19(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that Defendants reside in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Kings County, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires courts to assess each claim when deciding whether a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred in the chosen district.

MCNALLY v. POWERS · filed 2022-07-21(b)(2)

In determining whether a “substantial part” of the relevant events or omissions occurred in a particular jurisdiction, the Court must look at the nature of the dispute and, where there are multiple claims, must assess venue in relation to each claim.

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

Republic Steel v. Beemac, Inc. · filed 2022-07-21(b)(2)

Finally, venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania because Beemac and Deemac are located there and “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” there.

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

Arafa v. New York State · filed 2022-07-22(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that Defendants reside in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Queens County, venue under Section 1391(b)(2) would also be proper 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.

White v. Environmental Protection Agency · filed 2022-07-22(b)(2)

Venue would, however, also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the District of New Jersey.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make venue proper based on insignificant events in a district when the conduct underlying the claims occurred elsewhere.

Daniels v. Novant Health Inc · filed 2022-07-25(b)(2)

Here, venue in the District of Hawai‘i is clearly improper. None of the Defendants resides in this District, and none of the conduct alleged with any particularity took place in this District.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make a district a proper venue based solely on follow-up medical care there when the accident giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.

Mikanadze v. Reed · filed 2022-07-28(b)(2)

Neither Plaintiff’s complaint nor any of his additional submissions to the Court demonstrate that venue is proper in this District on the ground that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to” Plaintiff’s claim occurred in the Eastern District of New York. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s alleged “follow-up medical care” resulting from an accident that occurred in the Northern District of Ohio “is insufficient to establish proper venue” in the Eastern District of New York “because such allegations do not give rise to the claim.”

Section 1391(b)(2) makes venue improper when the events giving rise to the litigation did not occur in the district.

Global Tech Industries Group Inc. v. Wells · filed 2022-07-21(b)(2)

Furthermore, venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as Global Tech has not alleged that the events that gave rise to this litigation—namely, when Global Tech retained Wells to resolve its Dispute with Richardson & Patel—occurred in this district.

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

VF Corporation v. Gray · filed 2022-07-29(b)(2)

Accordingly, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claim occurred in the State of North Carolina.

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

Murray v. CSX Transportation · filed 2022-08-04(b)(2)

Personal jurisdiction and venue are proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events, acts, or omissions given rise to this dispute took place in Mobile County within the Southern District of Alabama.

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

Green v. Duffy · filed 2022-08-10(b)(2)

Under § 1391(b)(2), venue is only proper in “the places where the [relevant] events have taken place, only those locations hosting a ‘substantial part’ of the events are to be considered.”

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

Tactacell L L C v. Deer Management Systems L L C · filed 2022-08-10(b)(2)

The Court finds that venue is proper in this District because it is a location where the parties anticipated the performance of the Agreement would take place.

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

KELLY v. PEERSTAR LLC · filed 2022-08-11(b)(2)

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

Weiss v. Premier Technologies · filed 2022-08-12(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in a district “in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located” or “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” Here, it is undisputable that the action could have been brought originally in the Western District of New York. Weiss bases her claim on conduct that primarily occurred within the Western District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including alleged misrepresentations made to the plaintiff in the forum.

Renowned Chemical Solutions LLC v. CJ Chemicals LLC · filed 2022-08-17(b)(2)

The Court finds that Trois controls and thus venue is proper here. Like in Trois, Lee’s alleged misrepresentations—the basis of the fraud claims in Count [V—were made to Renowned while Renowned was in Texas. Clearly, then, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the fraud claim occurred in Texas.

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

Baham v. Xtant Medical Holdings, Inc. · filed 2022-08-17(b)(2)

A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Baham’s claims occurred in Utah. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Utah represents a proper venue for this litigation.

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

(PS) Lindblad v. Lunny · filed 2022-08-17(b)(2)

In addition, the complaint’s allegations do not establish that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Wilkerson v. Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway, LLC · filed 2022-08-22(b)(2)

Thus, Wilkerson has met his burden to show that venue in the Middle District of Florida is proper.

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

Spriggle v. LeVebre · filed 2022-08-18(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate because all actions detailed in the amended complaint occurred within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 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.

MORTLAND v. CASTLE HOSPITALITY LLC · filed 2022-08-22(b)(2)

Likewise, given that the hotel and its architectural barriers that prevent full and equal access to disabled persons exists in the Western District of Pennsylvania, the Court has personal jurisdiction over the hotel and venue is also proper in this Court.

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

Kraljevich v. Courser Athletics, Inc. · filed 2022-08-23(b)(2)

On the face of the Complaint, venue is proper in this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (venue 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 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.

Benhamou v. Moving Solutions, LLC f/k/a Gold Standard Relocation · filed 2022-08-24(b)(2)

The Court finds that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district and a substantial part of the household goods at issue in Plaintiffs’ claims is situated in this district.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, even when other significant events occurred elsewhere.

Schultz v. The Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation · filed 2022-08-25(e)(1)(B)

Consequently, venue will be proper in the Northern District of California only if “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in this district. See § 1391(e)(B). ... Accordingly, the Court finds venue is proper in the Northern District of California.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where sales of allegedly infringing goods in the district are substantial to the claims, even if those sales are a small share of the defendant’s total sales.

Alfwear v. Ubhot · filed 2022-08-26(b)(2)

Given that Defendants have sold a number of allegedly infringing products to Utahns online and through retailers over several years,168 substantial events material to Alfwear’s claims have taken place in Utah.

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

ALERS v. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY · filed 2022-08-29(b)(2)

Turning to venue, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) notes, in relevant part, that venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred….” ... Thus, the Middle District is arguably a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred. ... Taken together, the Middle District would have had proper jurisdiction and venue over the original action (i.e., the case could have been brought in the transferee district in the first instance), thereby satisfying the first step in the two-step analysis.

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

Gines v. Skyjack, Inc. · filed 2022-08-30(b)(2)

The proposed third-party complaint also satisfies the venue requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Skyjack’s claim because Plaintiff’s injuries occurred in Fairview Heights, Illinois, 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.

JTH Tax, LLC v. Leggat · filed 2022-08-31(b)(2)

In a civil action, venue is proper in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located” or “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. ... Thus, the bulk of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in that district, and the action could have been brought in that district.

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

MOLD MEDICS LLC v. HOMECLEANSE SERVICES, LLC · filed 2022-09-01(b)(2)

The Court concurs with Mold Medics that venue is proper in the Western District pursuant to § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to their claims occurred 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.

DUNKIN v. D.F. CHASE, INC. · filed 2022-09-02(b)(2)

In order for venue to lie in this District under § 1391(b)(2), a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claims must have occurred in this District. As Dunkin’s own Complaint makes clear, the events giving rise to his claims did not occur in the Eastern District.

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

Rajapakse v. Internet Escrow Services · filed 2022-09-06(b)(2)

Venue would also be proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), which allows venue in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” Venue is thus not limited to the single district in which the majority of acts or omissions took place; rather, it is proper in any district in which a substantial part of the acts or omissions took place. ... The Court finds that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the Eastern District of Tennessee, and venue is therefore proper here.

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

(PC) Langley v. Garcia · filed 2022-08-24

In addition, the events giving rise to this action occurred in Visalia, California. Accordingly, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

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

Petrakis v. Thompson · filed 2022-09-02(b)

And because these claims arose at Danville Correctional Center, the severed case will be transferred to the Central District of Illinois after it is opened and assigned a new case number. ... Once the newly severed action is opened, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1404(a) and on the Court's own motion, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois for such further proceedings as that court may deem appropriate.

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

Mobley v. CIG Logistics LLC · filed 2022-09-08(b)(2)

Additionally, because the complaint alleges that a substantial part of the unpaid wages are due to New Mexico workers, venue is also proper in New Mexico; it is merely personal jurisdiction that is lacking here.

Section 1391(b)(2) looks to where substantial events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred, not merely where the plaintiff felt their effects.

Dorneanu v. Graco Inc. · filed 2022-09-08(b)(2)

Section 1391(b)(2), however, does not traditionally contemplate looking to where the effects of the underlying actions occur.

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

Kaul v. Intercontinental Exchange · filed 2022-09-12(b)(2)

Venue does not lie in the Southern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2) because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” did not occur 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.

Jean-Baptiste v. Montway LLC · filed 2022-09-12(b)(2)

The allegations of the complaint show that all of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred outside this district, and venue is therefore not proper in this district 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.

Rosen v. The State of Florida · filed 2022-09-19(b)(2)

Thus, because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims took place in Florida, venue under Section 1391(b) (2) does not lie in this district.

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

Silva v. Annucci · filed 2022-09-22(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that Defendants reside in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Albany and Ulster Counties, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of New York.

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

Hirsch v. Butterman · filed 2022-09-22(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claims thus arose in substantial part in Kings County, New York, under Section 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Graham v. U.S. Congress of United States · filed 2022-09-20(b)(2)

Nevertheless, venue is not proper in this Court. Rather, plaintiff's complained-of actions occurred at USP Thomson, which is located in the Northern District of Illinois.

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

Forrest v. Wetzel · filed 2022-09-22(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate because all actions detailed in the amended complaint occurred within the Middle 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.

Hirsch v. Butterman · filed 2022-09-26(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue is proper in this District and the Eastern District of New York because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred therein. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the alleged wrongful conduct occurred, even if related events occurred elsewhere.

Turner v. ILG Technologies LLC · filed 2022-09-28(b)(2)

While ILG is incorporated under the laws of Florida, its software was to be used in Florida, and the FBBE ultimately chose to reschedule the exam in Florida, there is still venue in the Western District of Missouri.

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

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd' s, London v. Allied Professionals Insurance Company · filed 2022-09-28(b)(2)

In sum, Lloyd’s has not made a prima facie showing that any event or omission giving rise to the claims in this case — let alone a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims” -— took place in New York. Accordingly, venue is not 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.

Perch v. Verisys Corporation · filed 2022-09-29(b)(2)

Venue would be proper in Utah “under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), if ‘a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim’ arose there.” Id. In the present action, a significant portion of the relevant activities giving rise to Perch’s claim occurred in Utah: a majority of Verisys’ employees, officers, and management worked in Utah, Perch emailed employees in Utah to dispute the information in the FACIS report, and Verisys employees in Utah communicated the results of the investigations.

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

Optimum Construction, Inc. v. Harbor Business Compliance Corporation · filed 2022-09-30(b)(2)

Venue for a civil action in district court 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[.]” Id. § 1391(b)(2). ... Construing the Complaint in the light most favorable to Optimum, see id. at 366, the Court may draw a reasonable inference that at least a substantial portion of these events occurred in the District of Maryland. The Court does not find that venue is improper in this district and cannot dismiss the Complaint on this basis.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where events giving rise to a claim have more than a tangential connection to the district, even if venue is also proper elsewhere.

ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION v. SMITH · filed 2022-09-30(b)(2)

Thus, venue is proper in this district as more than a “tangential” part of the fraudulent scheme allegedly occurred in New Jersey.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue when a district has a substantial connection to the claims, even if another district has greater contacts.

International Petroleum Products and Additives Company, Inc. v. PXL Chemicals BV · filed 2022-09-28(b)(2)

Under these circumstances, there are enough ties to this district to satisfy the “substantiality” test of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Jones v. Noel · filed 2022-09-30(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate because all actions detailed in the amended complaint occurred within the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

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

Nunez v. Wolf · filed 2022-09-30(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate because all actions detailed in the amended complaint occurred within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 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.

Brizuela v. Mon Health Medical Center · filed 2022-10-06(b)(2)

In this case, with respect to Plaintiff’s claims, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” appear to have taken place in Morgantown, West Virginia. Therefore, the proper venue for this case appears to be in the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

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

(PC)Evans v. Ourique · filed 2022-10-07(b)(2)

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

Section 1391 permits venue in a district with a substantial connection to the events or omissions giving rise to the claim.

Cyr v. Real Value Products, LLC · filed 2022-10-12(b)(2)

The venue statute states a plaintiff may file his complaint in any forum where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim arose; this includes any forum with a substantial connection to the plaintiff’s claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a); First of Michigan Corp. v. Bramlet, 141 F.3d 260, 263 (6th Cir. 1998).

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

Arrestouich v. Adams County Web-Ex Court Proceedings · filed 2022-10-14(b)(2)

As to subsection (2), courts must examine “the nature of the plaintiff’s claims and the acts or omissions underlying those claims” and determine whether “substantial events material to those claims occurred” in this district. ... Accepting the allegations as true, none of the alleged wrongdoing 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.

Combs v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc. · filed 2022-10-18(b)(2)

In the present action, a significant portion of the relevant activities giving rise to Combs’ claim occurred in the Eastern District, most notably that he worked and was injured in Pendleton County. (Compl. ¶ 10).

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

Custer v. Sigler · filed 2022-10-18(b)(2)

In pertinent part, § 1391 provides that venue in civil litigation 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). Matamoras is located in Pike County, Pennsylvania, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

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

(PS) Ragan v. Oliver · filed 2022-10-20(b)(2)

The complaint’s allegations do not establish that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) makes venue improper in a district where no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

WOLFFE v. GALDENZI · filed 2022-10-25(b)(2)

Mr. Wolffe’s complaint makes explicitly clear that the actions or omissions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in South Carolina. ... The Eastern District of Pennsylvania is plainly an improper venue.

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

Carey v. Slaney · filed 2022-10-19(b)(2)

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

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

Walker v. Capra · filed 2022-10-24(b)(2)

Venue of Plaintiff’s claims arising at Upstate is therefore proper, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), in the Northern District of New York, where the claims arose.