28 U.S.C. § 1391

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in the district where the property underlying the claims is located.

Savvidis v. Bank of America NA · filed 2022-10-31(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that it has personal jurisdiction over Defendant with respect this action and that venue is therefore proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because Plaintiff brings his claims regarding property located in Connecticut, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the District of Connecticut.

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

Taylor-Livas v. Dykema Gossett P.L.L.C. · filed 2022-11-01(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the judicial district where either all defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. ... The Court concludes that venue in this lawsuit lies best in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, where Plaintiff alleges the race discrimination occurred.

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

Hirsch v. Butterman · filed 2022-11-08(b)(2)

Because the affirmation was filed in a Kings County Supreme Court in connection with an ongoing proceeding in that court, Plaintiff’s claims arose in substantial part in Kings County, New York. Under Section 1391(b)(2), venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Hover v. State of Missouri Department of Corrections · filed 2022-11-14(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; the plaintiff’s residence alone does not establish venue elsewhere when the alleged conduct occurred in another district.

Turentine v. Lebanon II · filed 2022-11-15(b)(2)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not carried her burden to establish venue is proper in this district under § 1391(b).

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

JACKSON HEWITT INC. v. NEW AGE TAXES, INC. · filed 2022-11-17(b)(2)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendants have not sustained their burden of demonstrating that New Jersey is an inappropriate venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where the plaintiff experienced the effects of the injury giving rise to the claim.

Li-Bachar v. Johnson & Johnson · filed 2022-11-21(b)(2)

For this reason, the Court concludes that venue is proper in the Western District of Michigan because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 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.

Hilton v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · filed 2022-11-28(b)(2)

Thus, the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia 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 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Bren Insurance Services, Inc. v. Envision Pharmaceutical Services, LLC · filed 2022-11-28(b)(2)

Second, Section 1391(b)(2) provides that a civil action may be brought in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and there is no dispute that this entire action revolves around two accounts located in Texas (Doc. No. 49–1 ¶ 8), one of which is located in the Northern District of Texas.

A telephone reservation made in a district does not make venue proper there for a product liability claim when the accident and injuries occurred elsewhere.

RINALDI v. FCA US LLC · filed 2022-11-30(b)(2)

The Court is not persuaded that Swisher’s reservation of the Jeep Wrangler while in New Jersey makes this district one in which “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), a conclusion supported by analogous decisions within the Third Circuit.

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

Starr Indemnity and Liability Company v. 60-206, LLC · filed 2022-12-01(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, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... Under this statute, Starr may have originally brought the action in the unofficial Southern Division where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim to have occurred in the district; a handful of contacts within a broader alleged scheme is insufficient.

PC v. Lira · filed 2022-12-02(b)(2)

Venue is not proper under Section 1391(b)(2) as to either deceit claim.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue in a trademark infringement action solely where the plaintiff feels the injury.

The Resource Room SI, Inc. v. Borrero · filed 2022-12-02(b)(2)

Moreover, that a district is where the harm of the trademark infringement is felt is not sufficient to establish venue.

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

D'Anzieri v. HHarrison Global LLC · filed 2022-12-02(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges that the conduct which gave rise to her surviving claims of sex discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation occurred while she was working within this District, the Court concludes that venue is proper in this District under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district with a substantial connection to the claim, including where a disputed billboard and its intended audience are located.

The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Lamar Media Corporation · filed 2022-12-06(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, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... Venue is proper in the Western District of Arkansas. At least one of the billboards at issue here is located in this District, as is the audience TST sought to reach with its advertisements.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred; the defendant bears the burden of showing that venue is improper.

JACKSON HEWITT INC. v. ACTIVE PERSONAL TAXES, INC. · filed 2022-12-06(b)(2)

Accordingly, Defendants have not sustained their burden of demonstrating that New Jersey is an improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Cook v. Marshall · filed 2022-12-09(b)(2)

That statute provides that jurisdiction is proper, inter alia, in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. In this case, a substantial part of the events giving rise to this case 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.

Stoudt v. BCA Industries · filed 2022-12-09(b)(2)

Here, Retired Tire was formed in Reading, Pennsylvania, where the alleged malfunction of the shredding equipment occurred, and therefore venue is proper 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, including communications sufficiently connected to the claim.

Lord v. Smith · filed 2022-12-14(b)(2)

In the context of this litigation, these communications show a substantial part of the events that gave rise to Lord’s claims occurred 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 claim occurred.

Hogan v. Mahabir · filed 2022-12-14(b)(2)

Here, although venue for Plaintiff’s state law claims is likely not proper in this District under Section 1391(b)(1) – unless DNATA is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York State, and Mahabir resides in this District – venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2), in the Eastern District of New York because the events giving rise to her claims occurred in Queens County.

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

Trivedi v. General Electric Company · filed 2022-12-19(b)(2)

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

AVILA v. ARPIN VAN LINE · filed 2022-12-20(b)(2)

Venue is therefore proper in this jurisdiction because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in New Jersey,* 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.

Keita v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,et al · filed 2022-12-09(b)(2)

The Eastern District of New York, however, appears to be a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Parks v. AIG · filed 2022-12-22(b)(2)

Venue in that district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because, as alleged in their complaint, a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, in the Western District of Oklahoma.

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

Taylor v. New York State Dept. of Correction Employees · filed 2023-01-05(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges that those alleged events have occurred at Auburn, under Section 1391(b)(2), the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York is a proper venue for any claims arising from those alleged events.

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

Twigg v. Varsity Brands Holding Co., Inc. · filed 2023-01-12(b)(2)

With respect to the proposed transferee district, venue is proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania because the product’s alleged failure to perform as intended and Plaintiff’s resulting injury which gave rise to this claim occurred in Lycoming County, which is within the Middle District.

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

Effiwatt v. Salamon · filed 2022-12-30(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Brooklyn, venue is proper under § 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Greene 958528 v. Rewerts · filed 2023-01-05(b)

Relevant here, § 1391 provides that a civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which (1) any defendant resides or (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. ... Because there is no apparent basis for venue in this district, but the facts alleged in the Complaint suggest that venue would be proper in the Western District, this Court finds that the interests of justice would be served by transferring the case to the district where it should have been initially filed: The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

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. Thompson · filed 2023-01-05(b)(2)

Venue for this case thus lies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state, or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

(PC) Miller v. Beam · filed 2023-01-12(b)

In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district, and plaintiff’s claims arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California.

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

Damon v. State of New York · filed 2023-01-12(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for an insurance coverage action in a district where a substantial part of the underlying conduct relevant to coverage occurred.

Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. Sanctuary Systems, LLC · filed 2023-01-18(b)(2)

The Court concludes that under the standards set forth in Matson, EMC has shown that venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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.

Eagles Nest Outfitters, Inc. v. Taomore, Inc. · filed 2023-01-18(b)(2)

In any event, even under the general venue statute, a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims (i.e., Defendant’s alleged unlawful manufacturing, importing, advertising, and distributing) all occurred in California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (venue is proper in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred). Therefore, the Court finds that venue is proper in the Central District of California.

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

Quiroz v. Elmira Psychiatric Center/Hospital · filed 2023-01-18(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Chemung County, venue would be proper, under Section 1391(b)(2), in the Western District of New York.

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

Simpson v. The J.G. Wentworth Company · filed 2023-01-19(b)(2)

Here, a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Middle District of Florida because that is where Plaintiff resides and where he received the allegedly unlawful telephone call.

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

Dahl v. Petroplex Acidizing, Inc. · filed 2023-01-19(b)(2)

The Court concludes that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [Plaintiff’s] claim occurred” in New Mexico.

Section 1391 permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the suit occurred, including a district where the challenged advertisement was received.

Rivers v. Noom Inc · filed 2023-01-23

So the court must determine whether venue is “wrong” or “improper” under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Id. ... Because Calhoun County is in the Northern District of Alabama, venue is proper here.

Under § 1391(b)(2), venue for a claim based on nonpayment depends on where the defendant failed to pay, rather than where the plaintiff felt the loss.

RESOLUTION MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. v. DESIGN ONE BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. · filed 2023-01-23(b)(2)

We conclude that the relevant event or omission – Defendants’ failure to pay Plaintiff – occurred in the Knoxville, Tennessee, where Defendants reside. Therefore, New Jersey is not a proper venue under 1391(b)(2).

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

Saidi v. U.S. Federal Government · filed 2023-01-24(b)(2)

Thus, while it is unclear whether this court is a proper venue for Plaintiff’s remaining claims under Section 1391(b)(2), it is clear that, under that provision, 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 the district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Martinez v. Honeywell International Inc. DO NOT DOCKET. Case transferred to Northern District of Texas - Abilene Divisio · filed 2023-01-25(b)(2)

It is undisputed that this case could have been brought in the Abilene Division of the Northern District of Texas, where the Azure Sky Wind Project facility is located and where Martinez’s fall occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (“A civil action may be brought in . . . a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, 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 giving rise to the claim occurred.

Subbotovskiy v. Touro University · filed 2023-01-31(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges that a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claims occurred at Touro Law Center in Suffolk County, venue is also proper in the Eastern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where the events giving rise to the suit occurred when a special venue provision does not control.

Ramirez v. United States Park Police · filed 2023-02-01(b)(2)

Under the general venue provision for federal question cases set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in the district where “the events giving rise to the suit occurred.” § 1391(b)(2). Venue is plainly proper in D.C. if this provision were to apply, as no party disputes that the alleged misconduct occurred in Lafayette Square within the District. ... Because the Agreement was not properly authorized under Section 7302, that statute’s special venue provision does not control and the District of Columbia remains the proper venue for this suit.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for a trademark infringement claim where likely consumer confusion occurs, even when only a small share of the defendant’s business comes from that district.

CENTER FOR COMMUNITY SELF-HELP v. SELF FINANCIAL, INC. · filed 2023-02-06(b)(2)

Under the general venue statute, venue is proper in any judicial district “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2); ... Taking these facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Aggarao, 675 F.3d at 366, the Court finds that Plaintiff has carried its burden to resist dismissal for improper venue by making a prima facie showing that it is likely that there is consumer confusion in North Carolina, cf. Savvy Rest, 2019 WL 1435838, at *8 (finding venue was proper based on online sale and subsequent physical delivery of fifty mattresses to Virginia residents over prior five years).

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

Osburn v. Ardmore Suzuki, Inc. · filed 2023-02-10(b)(2)

The court finds that the Eastern District of Texas is a proper venue because this is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” occurred.

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

Machado v. Hershey Entertainment and Resorts Company · filed 2023-02-13(b)(2)

Venue is further improper because, as discussed above, none of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Eastern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where contract negotiations and financing form a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

Morgan v. Sewell · filed 2023-02-15(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district by merit of the contract negotiations having occurred in this district and that financing came from this district.

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

Eustache v. Louissaint · filed 2023-02-22(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 Brooklyn, venue is also proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where substantial events material to bond claims occurred, including the alleged default underlying those claims.

Key Construction, Inc. v. Western Surety Company · filed 2023-02-23(b)(2)

The substantial events material to this action’s claims occurred in the Western District of Washington where the principal to the payment and performance bonds allegedly defaulted on the Subcontract. ... So, the court concludes that venue in the Western District of Washington is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Stackhouse v. John Doe (N.Y.D.O.C.C.S.) · filed 2023-02-14(b)(2)

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

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

Popa v. PSP Group LLC · filed 2023-02-27(b)(2)

And the Court otherwise concludes that venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2). “[A] substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to” Ms. Popa’s claim occurred in Pennsylvania— namely, her web browser information was tracked and monitored “while [Ms. Popa was] visiting the PSP website on her computer from Pennsylvania.”

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

BERNARD v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC. · filed 2023-02-27(b)(2)

Defendant satisfied its burden of showing improper venue by offering evidence that the wrongful act alleged in the Complaint did not occur in New Jersey, and Plaintiff has failed to rebut that evidence.

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

Keita v. The Bank of New York Mellon · filed 2023-03-01(b)(2)

Nothing in the complaint suggests that any of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims about a mortgage loan secured by real property in Staten Island occurred within this district, and venue is thus 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.

Booker v. Murphy · filed 2023-03-06(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that Officer Murphy resides 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 Shawangunk, it is known that venue is 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.

Hollington v. CDM Federal Programs Corporation · filed 2023-03-10(b)(2)

Venue is also not proper in the SDNY under § 1391(b)(2). All sufficiently pled claims occurred in either Houston, Texas or Springfield, Missouri.

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

Hango v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement · filed 2023-03-13(b)(2)

In addition, the court finds venue is most appropriate in the Northern District of Ohio because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, even if local licensing laws do not apply to the activity.

Scg America Group Inc. v. Starlight Security Inc. · filed 2023-03-15(b)(2)

The Court’s conclusion that the District’s licensing laws do not apply to SCG’s work on the Project does not change the fact that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Venue is proper; accordingly, the Court DENIES SSI’s Motion to Dismiss for improper venue.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to each named plaintiff’s claim to occur in the district; economic injury there alone is insufficient.

Clark v. McDonald's Corporation · filed 2023-03-27(b)(2)

For these reasons, Clark’s claims cannot be properly brought in this District under Section 1391(b)(2). Moreover, venue is clearly improper under Section 1391(b)(2) as to the non-Illinois Plaintiffs’ claims.

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

D'Ewart Representatives LLC v. Sediver USA Inc · filed 2023-03-22(b)(2)

Venue is adequately pleaded. According to the complaint, (see generally Dkt. No. 1), a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred in this District. See ... 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391(b)(2) looks to where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, rather than where the decisions behind them were made.

Burkman v. Bureau of Prisons · filed 2023-03-29(b)(2)

Plaintiff mistakes the relevant statutory test for venue, which asks where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” not where the decision-making underlying those events should ultimately be traced.

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

Almanzar v. Baratian · filed 2023-03-29(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Washington County, venue would be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred; a few deliveries in a district did not establish venue for claims based on corporate employment decisions.

Fallin v. Covenant Transporation Group, Inc. · filed 2023-03-30(b)(2)

A total of up to four deliveries at the beginning of Fallin’s employment with Covenant, prior to his eight-month employment with Star in which he travelled 100,000 miles, does not amount to a substantial part of the events that gave rise to Fallin’s claims.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for trademark and unfair competition claims where sales of the accused goods support an inference of consumer confusion in the district.

Tangle, Inc. v. Buffalo Games, LLC · filed 2023-04-03(b)(2)

Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, the Complaint supports an inference of consumer confusion in this district when a potential consumer encounters both Plaintiff’s nationwide marketing and the Infringing Toy on Target’s shelves. ... Therefore, venue is proper in this district for Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1391(b).

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

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dishinger · filed 2023-04-03(a)(2)

Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the insider trading claim occurred in Georgia, and therefore, the SEC has not carried its burden to establish that venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a plaintiff attempted to use an inaccessible website and encountered the alleged discrimination.

Dicks v. Cooks Junction, Inc. · filed 2023-04-04(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York under § 1391(b)(2). Plaintiff, who resides in the Southern District of New York, alleges that she accessed and “attempted to utilize, on a number of occasions” Defendant’s Website from “within this Judicial District.” Dkt. No. 10. Put differently, it was in this District that Plaintiff encountered and suffered the effects of Defendant’s allegedly unlawful discrimination. Thus, according to these allegations, a substantial part of the events that are the subject of this action occurred in this District.

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

NSA Auto Transport, LLC v. Contract Freighters, Inc. · filed 2023-04-06(b)(2)

The first factor of the analysis is satisfied because this action could have been brought in the District of Oregon, Portland Division, as venue would have been proper 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.

Million v. Pindernation Holdings LLC · filed 2023-04-06(b)(2)

Therefore, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” occurred in this district and venue is proper. 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.

Avi & Co NY Corp v. Channeladvisor Corporation · filed 2023-03-29(b)(2)

The Eastern District of North Carolina is also an appropriate venue for the litigation of Avi’s claims because Channeladvisor’s alleged misrepresentations, ... inducement, id., and breaches, ... are alleged to have occurred there. See, e.g., Bent, 2016 WL 153092, at *5 (personal jurisdiction and venue where substantial part of events or omissions giving rise to claim occurred in forum); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated”).

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

Collins v. Tyson Foods, Inc. · filed 2023-03-30(b)

Venue is proper in the Western District of Kentucky as the events occurred in Clinton County, Kentucky.

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

Keita v. Ford · filed 2023-04-03(b)(2)

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

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 in another district.

Acosta v. 6 to 7 Correctional Officers · filed 2023-04-06(b)(2)

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

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

Wright v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. · filed 2023-04-04(b)(2)

Because venue lies in the District of South Carolina, see § 1391(b)(2), in the interest of justice, this Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, see § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) makes venue improper in a district where the defendants do not reside and the alleged events did not occur.

Shelby v. Petreucci · filed 2023-04-06(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because the individuals are employed at Federal Medical Center, Carswell, and the alleged events occurred there, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this court under Section 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; at this stage, allegations can establish a prima facie showing of venue.

Forework, LLC v. Cull · filed 2023-04-13(b)(2)

These allegations indicate that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Northern District; and, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, they suffice to demonstrate a prima facie showing of venue at this stage. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue must be denied.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred; merely receiving promotional emails in a district does not establish venue when the contract was to be performed elsewhere.

4U Promotions, Inc. v. 18001 Holdings, LLC · filed 2023-04-14(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s mere receipt of Defendant’s promotional emails in Ohio is nothing more than an incidental fact underlying the claims at issue. Accordingly, and in the absence of any other arguments that venue is proper in this judicial district, venue is not appropriate in this Court.

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.

Weinhoffer v. Davie Shoring, Inc. · filed 2023-04-14(b)(2)

The Court finds that venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

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

Hubbard v. Eitan Group North America · filed 2023-04-14(b)(2)

Hubbard’s residence in North Carolina, however, does not suffice to conclude that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his 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 action occurred.

United States v. Rare Breed Triggers, LLC · filed 2023-04-18(b)(2)

The fact that RBT operates from Austin, Texas would alone confer venue in the Western District of Texas, since a “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to” this action took place in that district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Williams v. Lorman · filed 2023-04-20(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the District of Vermont, 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 Vermont, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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

Keita v. The Amazon Corporation Headquarters · filed 2023-04-20(b)(2)

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

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

Keita v. Nike Corporate Office · filed 2023-04-21(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Eastern District of New York, 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 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 giving rise to the claim occurred.

(HC) Solvey v. Clark · filed 2023-04-12(b)(2)

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

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

Carnahan v. McLean County Sheriffs Offfice · filed 2023-04-12(b)(2)

Venue in this Court is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Bloomington, Illinois.

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

(PC) Flournoy v. Marin County · filed 2023-04-20(b)(2)

The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in ... (2) 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). In this case, the claim arose in Contra Costa County, which is in the Northern 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.

Mayo v. Mayo · filed 2023-04-21(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does allege that the events that are the bases for his claims occurred on Staten Island, Richmond County, New York (see ECF 1, at 5), however, which lies within the Eastern District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 112(c), 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) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Wickstrom v. United Airlines Master Executive Council · filed 2023-04-25(b)(2)

Because many of the acts and omissions central to the Pilots' complaint took place in the Northern District of Illinois, venue is proper there under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for a breach of contract claim when the complaint sufficiently alleges that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district.

Crownalytics, LLC v. SPINS, LLC · filed 2023-04-25(b)(2)

Although Plaintiff’s allegations are sparse, the Court concludes that they are sufficient to plausibly allege that a significant part of the events or omissions giving rise to the breach of contract claim occurred in Colorado.

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

SICOM S.P.A. v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. · filed 2023-04-25(b)(2)

It is sufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) that a “substantial part of the events giving rise” to the claim occurred in the chosen forum; a majority is not required.

Under Section 1391(b)(1)–(2), a plaintiff’s injury in a district alone does not establish venue when the defendants do not reside there and none of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.

Ruhe v. Krall · filed 2023-04-26(b)(1)–(2)

Even though, as Ruhe claims, the Kralls’ alleged actions harmed him here, see Dkt. Nos. 17 at 2, 21 at 3, this—by itself—is not enough to satisfy Section 1391.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in the district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where the plaintiff fell and was injured.

KOELLER v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC · filed 2023-05-04(b)(2)

In Denmark, Judge Hammer concluded that, pursuant to Section 1391(b)(2), venue was proper in the District of South Carolina because a substantial part of the events occurred in South Carolina, as the plaintiff tripped, fell, and sustained injuries at the defendants’ travel center located in the state. Id. at *4. The same is true in this case. Therefore, pursuant to Section 1391(b)(2), this Court is satisfied that venue is proper in the transferee court.

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

Deyo v. Eck · filed 2023-04-27(b)(2)

In this case, with respect to Deyo’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. ... In this case, since venue over this matter appears to lie in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in order to protect the plaintiff=s rights as a pro se litigant, we will order this case transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for further proceedings.

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

Crandall v. Ballou · filed 2023-04-27(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events detailed in the 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.

Primoris T&D Services, L.L.C. v. MasTec, Inc. · filed 2023-05-11(b)(2)

As to § 1391(b)(2), none of the substantial events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in the Northern District of Texas.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue when a substantial part of the claim’s events or the property at issue is in the judicial district where suit is filed.

Glovebox Technologies Inc. v. Da Cruz · filed 2023-05-11(b)(2)

None of which satisfies the venue statute. Venue may only lie in the Southern District of California if this judicial district is home to a substantial part of the relevant “events or omissions” or to a substantial part of the relevant “property that is the subject of the 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.

Primoris T&D Services, L.L.C. v. Westbrook · filed 2023-05-11(b)(2)

As to § 1391(b)(2), none of the substantial events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in the Northern District of Texas. Westbrook—at all times during his employment—worked out of the Holden, Louisiana branch of Primoris.

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

Zampieri v. Disher · filed 2023-05-15(b)(2)

Accordingly, under Section § 1391(b)(2), venue lies in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and in the interest of justice, this Court transfers this action to that court.

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

Turner v. Acting Commissioner Doug O'Donnell · filed 2023-05-17(b)(2)

Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the District of Alaska is not where a substantial part, or even any part, of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim to occur in the district; the location of property alone does not establish venue for a claim about conduct elsewhere.

Kaiser v. Imperial Oil of North Dakota, Inc. · filed 2023-05-24(b)(2)

Based upon the foregoing and after reviewing the entire record in this matter, the Court concludes venue is improper in the District of North Dakota under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Under § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

(PS) Trifu v. Executive Office of Immigration Review · filed 2023-05-30(b)(2)

All the relevant activity in this case occurred in the Northern District of California, and it appears plaintiff intended this case to be filed in the Northern District of California.

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

D'AMBOLA v. DAILY HARVEST, INC. · filed 2023-05-30(b)(2)

Lastly, venue is proper in SDNY. Specifically, one basis for proper venue pursuant to Section 1391(b) is whether “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the district, or “a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated” in the district. Mehta v. Angell Energy, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171612, at *11 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2019). Here, a substantial part of the alleged wrongdoing giving rise to the D’Ambolas’ claims occurred in New York, as that is where Daily Harvest marketed, sold, and distributed its Lentil Product to its customers.

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

Mathuram v. Vermont Service Center - USCIS · filed 2023-05-31(b)(2)

Because the remaining claims concern only events that took place through the USCIS Vermont Service Center, the Court concludes that Vermont, not Maryland, is the proper venue for the suit. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), ... Plaintiff does not allege that any of the offending actions took place in Maryland.

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

Wilson v. FBI · filed 2023-05-31(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 District of Columbia. 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.

Izeh v. Officer Boy'ls New Rochelle Police · filed 2023-05-31(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s Bergen County arrest took place outside of the Southern District of New York, venue for his claims arising from those alleged events is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(2). As the events underlying those claims occurred in New Jersey, under Section 1391(b)(2), the District of New Jersey is proper venue for any claims Plaintiff may have arising from those events.

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

AKHTER v. MOONEY · filed 2023-06-01(b)(2)

Consequently, the Eastern District of Texas is an appropriate venue pursuant to Subsection (b)(2), not the District of New Jersey.

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

Robinson v. Kings County Family Court · filed 2023-06-02(b)(2)

(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; ... The complaint does allege, however, that the events giving rise to its claims have occurred, and continue to occur, in Brooklyn (ECF 1, at 5-6), in the Eastern District of New York, see § 112(c).

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

McKenzie v. Chung · filed 2023-06-07(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that Defendant resides 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 Nassau County, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Metcalf f/k/a Heilman v. Burke · filed 2023-06-12(b)

Venue is proper because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise” to Ms. Heilman’s claims occurred within 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.

ABIRA MEDICAL LABORATORIES, LLC v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2023-06-16(b)(2)

However, as discussed above, Genesis does not allege any facts establishing that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s]” for which it seeks payment occurred in New Jersey. Indeed, Genesis does not allege that any event or omission giving rise to any of its claims occurred in New Jersey.

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

Wade 434839 v. Braman · filed 2023-05-31(b)

The Court concludes that venue in this § 1983 lawsuit lies in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, where Plaintiff alleges that the civil rights violations occurred.

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

ARCOREN v. DEPUY SYNTHES SALES, INC. · filed 2023-06-13(b)(2)

Generally, a civil action may be brought in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Here, both the surgery implanting the prosthesis and the surgery removing it took place in South Dakota.

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

McWilliams v. Sandy · filed 2023-06-15(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s restatement of his allegations in the complaint that a substantial portion of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred in Westchester County is not new information and does not change the Court’s analysis. In its order, the Court determined that the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in both Cortland County and Westchester County, and that under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue would be proper in both this District and in the Northern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) generally permits venue in the district where the acts or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.

Stockton v. Wetzel · filed 2023-06-21(b)(2)

Venue is generally proper in the district where the alleged acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... Therefore, this action was filed in the improper venue.

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

Sowell v. The New York City Police Department · filed 2023-06-22(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s Cape May County arrest and criminal proceedings took place outside of the Southern District of New York, venue for his claims arising from those alleged events is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

McCartney v. Malinka CPA LLC · filed 2023-06-22(b)(2)

In addition, this Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Oregon under Section 1391(b)(2).

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.

Draucker v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania · filed 2023-06-22(b)(2)

In this case, with respect to Draucker’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(e)(1)(B) requires a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to a claim against federal officers to occur in the chosen district; an investment there does not establish venue for a claim alleging only agency delay elsewhere.

Sadasivan v. Emmel · filed 2023-06-26(e)(1)(B)

Most significantly, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges delay in processing the application, only, and does not allege, for example, an application was rejected because of some aspect related to the investment in this district. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to their claims occurred 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.

Wilson v. Rayborn Construction, Inc. · filed 2023-06-28(b)(2)

The facts do not support a conclusion that a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Southern District of Indiana.

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

Sowell v. The New York City Department of Homeless Services · filed 2023-06-22(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s Cape May County arrest and criminal proceedings took place outside of the Southern District of New York, venue for his claims arising from those alleged events is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(2). As the events underlying those claims occurred in New Jersey, under Section 1391(b)(2), the District of New Jersey is the proper venue for any claims Plaintiff may have arising from those events.

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

FLETCHER v. BAGHRI HOTELS INC · filed 2023-07-06(b)(2)

Here, a transfer of venue is appropriate, in the interest of justice, because the substantial part, if not all, of the events giving rise to this action occurring in California make the Northern District of California a viable alternative 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.

Discover Growth Fund, LLC v. Clickstream Corporation · filed 2023-07-06(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, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Here, the Court finds that the action may have been brought in Florida because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Discover’s claims occurred there.

Section 1391(b)(2) looks to the defendant’s activities when determining where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred.

Anifowoshe v. Boujee · filed 2023-07-07(b)(2)

When determining, for venue purposes, where a substantial portion of events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred, a federal court focuses on activities not of the plaintiff, but of the defendant.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of an insurance coverage dispute arose, including where the policy was purchased and coverage was denied.

Chandler v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-07-10(b)(2)

The district in which a consumer purchases their insurance policy, executing a contract with their insurer, and in which an insurer later denies coverage would represent a location where a substantial portion of the conduct underlying the claim occurred.

Venue under § 1391(b)(2) is improper when the complaint does not establish that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the district.

(PS) Akbar Sr. v. Smith · filed 2023-07-14(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. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Thus, venue does not properly lie in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where the disputed services were performed.

Serving Seniors Care, Inc. v. Serratore-Rebong Group of Companies Corp · filed 2023-07-17(b)(2)

Venue is proper in a judicial district where “a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... Our complaint alleges that defendant is a Nevada corporation, and defendant asserts that the accounting services at issue in this action were “performed by employees physically located in the State of Nevada” (Dismiss & Transfer Mot. 5). Plaintiffs contest transfer, but do not otherwise argue that Nevada would be an improper venue. As such, this order finds that venue is proper in the District of Nevada.

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

BLACKSTONE v. TRANS UNION, LLC · filed 2023-07-19(b)(2)

Accordingly, we find that venue is proper in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and we therefore deny Chase’s Motion in its entirety.

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

McConville v. Power Home Solar, LLC · filed 2023-07-20(b)(2)

Third, venue would be appropriate in the Eastern District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) due to a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurring in the forum, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action being situated in the forum.

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

Russell, Yolanda v. Sarzen, Victoria · filed 2023-07-21(b)(2)

Thus, Russell’s allegations show that “a substantial portion of the activities giving rise to the action occurred in [Madison],” making venue in this district appropriate.

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

(PS) Rivers v. Parker · filed 2023-07-21(b)(2)

However, subsection (2) of Section 1391 does apply here, as it appears a substantial part of the events giving rise to the complaint occurred at the University of the Cumberlands, located in Williamsburg, Kentucky.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; economic losses felt elsewhere are effects of those events.

Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. DeSantis · filed 2023-07-21(b)

Venue is proper in either the district where DeSantis resides or the district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... However, TQL is mistaking the effects of events giving rise to a claim for the events themselves. Nearly all of the actions ostensibly taken by DeSantis—the “events” in question—took place in the District of Colorado. Thus, no error lies in the Court’s venue analysis.

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

Virgo v. U.S. Army · filed 2023-07-07(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the District of New Jersey, 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 New Jersey, 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.

Jones v. ACS/ Queens Field office · filed 2023-07-19(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 Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Queens County, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Drummond v. CVS Pharmacy · filed 2023-07-20(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Eastern District of New York, 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 Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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

McConville v. Goodleap, LLC · filed 2023-07-21(b)(2)

Third, venue would be appropriate in the Eastern District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) due to a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurring in the forum, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action being situated in the forum.

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

Nowak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · filed 2023-07-24(b)(2)

It is therefore clear that the locus of operative facts in this action is Nassau County, New York, where a substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred and where the documents and witnesses relevant to Plaintiff’s claims are likely to be found. Nassau County falls within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112. 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.

Lawson v. 5 Pointz · filed 2023-07-24(b)(2)

Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is clearly also a proper venue for those claims under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Wise v. The City of New York · filed 2023-07-25(b)(2)

Even if the Court were to assume that all of the defendants reside within the State of New York and that at least one of them resides within this judicial district, making venue for this action proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(1), because Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to his claims occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, and as Kings County lies within the Eastern District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 112(c), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is clearly 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 a claim occurred.

Madson v. Case · filed 2023-08-01(b)(2)

With respect to Plaintiff’s Section 1981 claims, because he alleges that the events giving rise to these claims occurred at the Chicago office, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) 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 claim occurred.

WALTERS v. LANDPRO EQUIPMENT, LLC · filed 2023-08-01(b)(2)

Venue would be proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2); see also Jumara, 55 F.3d at 878–79. Every act giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Middle District.

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

TRUMP v. SIMON & SCHUSTER INC · filed 2023-08-04(b)(2)

For venue to be proper under Section 1391(b)(2), “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” must have occurred here in the Northern District of Florida. In this case, it is undisputed that none of the relevant events—let alone “a substantial part” of them—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.

Joseph v. ACS · filed 2023-07-28(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to his claim took place in Queens County, outside this district, venue is not proper here under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Joseph v. Little Flower Children Services · filed 2023-07-31(b)(2)

Queens County and Kings County are located in the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 112(c), and venue of this action therefore is proper in that 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.

Buckner v. The State of Pennsylvania · filed 2023-08-01(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Middle District of Pennsylvania under Section 1391(b)(2), and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, 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.

Metellus v. Jolly · filed 2023-08-08(b)(2)

Even if the Court were to assume that all of the defendants reside within the State of New York and that at least one of them resides within this judicial district, making venue for this action proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(1), because Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to his claims have occurred in Queens County, and as Queens County lies within the Eastern District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. §112(c), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is clearly also 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 claim occurred.

ARUANNO v. I.R.S. · filed 2023-08-10(b)(2)

“A civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... The Complaint is properly filed in the District of New Jersey because Aruanno’s main allegation is that STU officials in Avenel, New Jersey, confiscated his CARES Act EIP payments.

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

ESCALET v. CANADA DRY POTOMAC CORP. · filed 2023-08-10(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because Plaintiff’s claims arose during his employment for the Defendant, which took place in the Eastern District of Virginia.

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

RLS (USA) Inc. v. Curium US LLC · filed 2023-08-15(b)(2)

Regardless, RLS has failed to demonstrate that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to its claims occurred in the Middle District of Florida. Venue is improper 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.

AOUAD v. MACHADO · filed 2023-08-18(b)(2)

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

Meridian PO Finance LLC v. OTR Tire Group Incorporated · filed 2023-08-21(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Meridian’s claims occurred in the District of Arizona. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Wright v. Walmart Inc. · filed 2023-08-21(b)

Venue is proper as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred within this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Indeed, Wright alleged that she purchased the solution at the Chester Walmart (Id., ¶¶ 27, 41).

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

SCOTT JORDAN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. LEXMARK CARPET MILLS, INC. · filed 2023-08-21(b)(2)

Further, section 1391(b)(2) provides that a case may be brought 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). ... Defendant shows no connection, outside of the alleged forum selection clause, to Ohio. Defendant does not argue that Defendant or Plaintiff interacted in Ohio or had any connections to the state.

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

Frye v. United States · filed 2023-08-25(b)(2)

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