28 U.S.C. § 1391

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

Rogers v. Biden · filed 2023-08-25(b)(2)

Nor has Plaintiff shown 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) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Holmseth v. Goddard · filed 2023-08-25(b)(2)

Venue is also improper under § 1391(b)(2). Holmseth’s claims all stem from Goddard’s alleged use of the Belmont Court to obtain a CSPO, which occurred in the Southern District of Ohio.

A parcel originating in a district does not establish venue under § 1391(b) when the allegations giving rise to the action are tied to another district.

MEYERS v. POSTMASTER GENERAL OF U.S. POSTAL SERVICE · filed 2023-08-28(b)

Here, the only connection to this District is a fleeting mention of one allegedly missing parcel, among many, originating in New Jersey. ECF No. 1 at 4. The other allegations—the alleged assault of Plaintiff, other missing parcels, and the litany of other allegations—appear tied to Plaintiff’s incarceration in the Eastern District of Virginia. Given Plaintiff’s most recent allegations of imminent harm, see, e.g., ECF No., 1 at 3, the Court will transfer this action to the Eastern District of Virginia, and defer to that District as to any determination regarding the IFP application or complaint.

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

Kaman Aerospace Corp. v. Central Copters, Inc. · filed 2023-08-28(b)(2)

Here, the Court need not decide whether the District of Montana would be the best venue or whether all the material events occurred in the District of Connecticut; rather, it is sufficient for venue to be proper in the District of Connecticut because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Kaman’s breach of contract claim occurred in Connecticut. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Specifically, the Court finds that Kaman has shown a prima facie case that venue is proper in this District, due to the parties’ communications and negotiations between Montana and Connecticut and Kaman’s partial performance from Connecticut.

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

Keita v. Chase Bank · filed 2023-08-28(b)(2)

Nothing in the complaint suggests that this court is a proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims. ... Because the alleged events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims ... occurred in Staten Island, the Eastern District of New York appears to be 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.

Thomas v. Brooklyn Dental Advance Dental Care of New York · filed 2023-08-28(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 the claims occurred at Brooklyn Dental, located in Brooklyn, Kings County, in the Eastern District of New York, 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 the claim occurred.

Anbang Group Holdings Co. Limited v. Zhou · filed 2023-08-30(b)(2)

Venue is proper for similar reasons, see 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b)—and because a substantial chunk of the alleged events giving rise to the RICO claims happened in the Northern District, 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.

Hamilton v. Schenk · filed 2023-08-30(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 Auburn 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 underlying a claim occurred, considering the entire sequence of events.

JTH Tax LLC v. Younan · filed 2023-09-01(b)(2)

Considering “the entire sequence of events underlying the claim,” Mitrano, 377 F.3d at 405, the Court concludes that “a substantial part of the events or omissions ... giving rise to the claim occurred” within the Norfolk Division of the Eastern District of Virginia, 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.

STEWARD v. APPLIED GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION · filed 2023-09-05(b)(2)

Accordingly, plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that Oregon is a proper venue under § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where contractual obligations were due.

Calson Management LLC v. S&W Solutions LLC · filed 2023-09-07(b)(2)

This Court thus concludes that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this district and to the extent Defendant’s Motion is based on the theory that venue is improper, it is DENIED.

Section 1391(b)(2) allows venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred; the plaintiff’s experience of the effects elsewhere does not establish venue there.

Jackson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. · filed 2023-09-07(b)(2)

As is relevant here, venue exists under § 1391 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). ... And while Plaintiff may have felt some of the effects of Defendants’ alleged conduct in Missouri where she lived, that is irrelevant to the venue analysis. See id. So a substantial part of the events did not occur in Missouri.

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.

Nedimyer v. CooperSurgical, Inc. · filed 2023-09-07(b)(2)

As the Court has held above, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [Plaintiffs’] claim[s] occurred” in South Carolina, § 1391(b)(2). Therefore, inasmuch as “the case falls within one of the three categories set out in § 1391(b)[,]” Atlantic Marine Const. Co., Inc., 571 U.S. at 56, “venue is proper[.]” Id.

Section 1391(b)(2) makes venue improper in a district where none of the events giving rise to the named plaintiff’s claim occurred.

Herrera v. National Vision, Inc. · filed 2023-09-11(b)(2)

Because none of the events giving rise to Herrera’s claim took place in the Northern District of California, venue isn’t proper there under § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) allows venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred; a plaintiff’s residence alone does not establish venue.

LEE v. Cook County Health and Hospital Systems · filed 2023-09-12(b)(2)

It is true that a plaintiff’s residence alone fails to satisfy § 1391’s requirements.

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

Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. · filed 2023-09-12(b)(2)

It is true that a plaintiff’s residence alone fails to satisfy § 1391’s requirements.

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

Gillens v. Carvajal · filed 2023-09-13(b)(2)

... venue is proper there under § 1391(b)(2), rendering § 1391(b)(3) inapplicable.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make venue proper where a third party developed software if that development did not give rise to the claim against the defendant.

Adams v. PSP Group, LLC · filed 2023-09-13(b)(2)

The fact that Clarify, a Session Replay Code Defendant used on its website, was developed by a Washington corporation in Washington, without more, does not confer venue in the Western District of Washington.

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

Bucks County Employees Retirement System v. Norfolk Southern Corporation · filed 2023-09-15(b)(2)

Finally, the Northern District of Georgia is an appropriate venue for this litigation because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that district.

Section 1391(b) does not support venue in a district where none of the alleged events giving rise to the claim occurred when another district is proper.

Brown v. Bagley · filed 2023-09-18(b)

The proper venue for civil actions is the judicial district where (1) any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property in question is situated; or (3) any defendant may be found if there is no other district in which plaintiff may otherwise bring the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Plaintiff does not allege that any of the acts, events, or omissions which form the basis of his action took place in the Eastern District of Michigan. ... No apparent basis therefore exists for venue to lie in the Eastern District.

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

Jansen v. The City of New York · filed 2023-09-07(b)(2)

Thus, it is clear that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for those claims 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.

Reed v. Badger · filed 2023-09-12(b)(2)

Because the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, venue is proper there.

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.

Baker v. Collier · filed 2023-09-21(b)(2)

There is no question Plaintiffs complaint might have been brought in the Abilene Division of the Northern District of Texas given that is where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred.

A judgment entered in a district does not establish venue there for a derivative suit when it is largely unrelated to the facts the plaintiff must prove.

Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Pessina · filed 2023-09-22(b)(2)

The Opioid MDL does not create venue in this case, as it is largely unrelated to the facts the Trust must prove to recover under the theories of relief it asserts in its Complaint.

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. CooperSurgical, Inc. · filed 2023-09-25(b)(2)

Alternatively, the Court finds Plaintiff has shown a substantial part of the events or omissions, giving rise to her claims, occurred in this District under § 1391(b)(2).

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

Microtech Knives, Inc. v. Outdoors Online, LLC · filed 2023-09-27(b)(2)

Here, transfer of this action is appropriate because the immediate action could have originally been brought in Georgia because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Georgia, not in North Carolina.

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

American Integrated Security Group Inc. v. Terra Sound Technology LLC · filed 2023-09-28(b)(2)

Section 1391(b)(2) does not require venue in the district with the most substantial contacts to the dispute. Rather, it is sufficient that a substantial part of the events occurred in the challenged venue, even if more events occurred elsewhere.

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

PALLADINO v. LEAVITT · filed 2023-09-29(b)(2)

Based on these allegations, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have asserted facts that substantial events or omissions underlying the dispute occurred in New Jersey, and venue is proper here.

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

Tate v. EyeMed Vision Care, LLC · filed 2023-09-29(b)(2)

Venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district (EyeMed’s headquarters are in Mason, Ohio).

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

Gaitan v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2023-09-27(b)(2)

Thus, 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) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Schwager v. Norristown State Hospital · filed 2023-09-29(b)(2)

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

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

Lee v. Pacific Star Resort and Spa · filed 2023-09-30(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this judicial district, the District Court of Guam, because all of the ... events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district. 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.

Person v. Jones · filed 2023-10-12(b)(2)

For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that venue is proper in the Western District of Washington. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurs, including the district where the administrative proceedings a plaintiff seeks to enjoin are ongoing.

Alpha Services LLC v. Looman · filed 2023-10-13(e)(1)(B)

For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that this District is a proper venue because the administrative proceedings that Plaintiffs seek to enjoin are ongoing in this District. Thus, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claim occurred in this District.

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

Ahmad v. State of New York City · filed 2023-10-13(b)(2)

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

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

Esters v. Vanguard Clinical, Inc. · filed 2023-10-17(b)(2)

The Court finds, however, that venue is improper in the Southern District of California under § 1391(b)(2) as alleged in the Complaint.

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

Bailon v. Pollen Presents · filed 2023-10-17(b)(2)

As a preliminary matter, this action could have been brought in the District of Nevada because it 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).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires facts showing that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the district, or that a substantial part of the property at issue is situated there.

Scales v. LA Web Experts · filed 2023-10-17(b)(2)

In addition, while Plaintiff alleges that he resides in New York County, within this judicial district, he alleges no facts showing where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred or where a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated. Thus, he does not allege facts sufficient to show that this court 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 claim occurred.

Francely v. State of Florida · filed 2023-10-13(b)(2)

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

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

Rodriguez v. Camba · filed 2023-10-19(b)(2)

Even if this court is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1), because Plaintiff alleges that a significant portion, if not, all of the events giving rise to his claims occurred in Brooklyn, within the Eastern District of New York, it is clear that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is also a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Kumaran v. National Futures Association · filed 2023-10-19(b)

Moreover, with respect to the claims against ADMIS, Kadlec and the NFA Defendants, Plaintiffs have not shown that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred” in Connecticut.

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

3B Holdings, Inc. v. Revere Plastics Systems, LLC · filed 2023-10-19(b)(2)

Based on the pleaded matters above, there is no question and no dispute between the parties that this action could have been – and now may be – brought in the Northern District of Ohio. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Fernandez v. Buttigieg · filed 2023-10-25(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) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Williams v. Glengariff Rehabilitation Healthcare Center · filed 2023-10-25(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 district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

SISTI v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD CORPORATION · filed 2023-10-26(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), “[a] civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” The accident occurred in York County, Pennsylvania, which is in the Middle District, so venue is proper there.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue based solely on a defendant’s mistaken belief that its calls or texts reached someone in the district.

Rojas v. Pioneer Credit Solutions LLC · filed 2023-10-30(b)(2)

Defendant’s mistaken belief that it was calling Plaintiff in this district does not establish 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” here.

For a claim alleging delayed adjudication of an EB-5 petition, the location of the investment does not establish venue when the adjudication activity occurs elsewhere.

Da Fonseca v. Emmel · filed 2023-11-02(e)(1)(B)

The fact that the business in which they have invested may be located here does not establish that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred here.

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

Sanchez v. Colvin · filed 2023-11-06(b)(2)

Even if all of the defendants reside within the State of New York, and at least one of them resides within this judicial district,1 making this court a proper venue under Section 1391(b)(1), because Plaintiff alleges that a significant portion, if not, all of the events giving rise to his claims occurred at Five Points, which is in Seneca County, within the Western District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 112(d), it is clear that the United States District Court for the Western District of New York is also a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue where an insurance agent resides when the events giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.

Accelerant Specialty Insurance Company v. Tran · filed 2023-11-07(b)(2)

Venue in the Middle District of Florida does not meet the statutory requirements in § 1391(b)(2)—the only provision under which venue would be proper here since Defendants reside in Illinois.

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

Institute for Free Speech v. Johnson · filed 2023-11-08(b)(2)

A civil action may be brought in a “judicial district in which any defendant resides” or “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Here, the event giving rise to this lawsuit is a decision by the Commission to approve an advisory opinion at a public meeting, which occurred in Austin.

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

Hopkins v. State of Wisconsin · filed 2023-11-08(b)(2)

However, Plaintiff also alleges malfeasance occurring in Kenosha County, Racine County, and Milwaukee County, which are within this District. Thus, venue is proper at this juncture (see infra Section 4.2) in either the Western District or this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (federal venue appropriate either in judicial district where any defendant resides or a district where substantial part of events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred).

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

Smith v. Hochul · filed 2023-11-08(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 Adirondack, 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 judicial district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Massaquoi v. Oddo · filed 2023-11-13(b)(2)

In this case, with respect to Massaquoi’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 in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Parker v. New York State Division of Parole · filed 2023-11-09(b)(2)

Plaintiff does not allege that any events giving rise to the instant action occurred in the Eastern District of New York. Rather, Plaintiff alleges that the events occurred in Manhattan and the Bronx. ... Because the acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s complaint occurred within the Southern District of New York, and relate to his prior litigation in that district, the action is appropriate for transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires significant events or omissions material to the claim to have occurred in the district where the action is brought.

Filsoof v. Wheelock Street Capital, LLC · filed 2023-11-30(b)(2)

Because no significant act or omission material to plaintiff’s negligence claim occurred in this district, venue is not proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Cohen v. United States of America · filed 2023-11-27(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Northern District of West Viriginia, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers the severed claims arising at Gilmer, and brought against the United States, Anderson, McCoy, IMS, and John Doe #1, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, 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.

Maldonado v. Annucci · filed 2023-12-05(b)(2)

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

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

HONEST ABE ROOFING FRANCHISE, INC. v. LESJON HOLDINGS, LLC · filed 2023-12-06(b)(2)

Although Honest Abe allegedly did not receive its payments in Indiana, and some of its trainings occurred in Indiana, the conduct giving rise to its claim arose in Illinois. That is where Defendants reside, carried out their franchise, and allegedly breached the franchise provisions.

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

Peterson v. Minerva Surgical · filed 2023-12-08(b)(2)

This Court, however, is also a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in Kansas, this Court also has authority under Section 9 to confirm the award.

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

Chang v. United States of America · filed 2023-12-15(b)(2)

Accordingly, without any evidence that the District of Columbia is the “judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), the Court concludes that the District of Columbia is not the appropriate venue for the plaintiff to pursue the return of his property.

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

Waters · filed 2023-12-19(b)(2)

The proper venue for this case is the United States Court for the Central District of California because that is where Defendants are located and the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims took place. See 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.

RaSaadi Lennox Hernandez el. v. Doe · filed 2023-12-19(b)(2)

Therefore, under Section 1391, Plaintiff’s action may be heard in a venue where all the defendants reside, or in the venue where the issue substantially arose. Here, Plaintiff’s action substantially arose in the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits a civil action against federal officers in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Butler v. Haaland · filed 2023-12-15(e)(1)(B)

Because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [Butler’s] claim occurred” in this judicial district, the Court finds that venue is proper under § 1391(e)(1)(B).

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

Bell v. Eads · filed 2023-12-19(b)(2)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(3). Plaintiff’s complaint involves incidents that occurred while he was housed in the Dickson County Jail in Charlotte, Tennessee. The individual Defendant, Jeff Eads, is Sheriff of Dickson County. Dickson County lies in the judicial district for the Nashville Division of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

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

Styles v. Family Court - Nassau County · filed 2023-12-20(b)(2)

Even if this court is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1), because Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to her claims occurred in Nassau County, within the ... Eastern District of New York, 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) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including the place where the plaintiff was injured.

Villano v. Shashamane Group, LLC · filed 2024-01-03(b)(2)

Here, venue is authorized by Section 1391(b)(2). ... The Court finds that, insofar as Villano was residing in California and was harmed within the Central District of California, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. Venue is proper.

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

Ayeni v. Bank of America N.A. · filed 2024-01-03(b)(2)

Furthermore, Plaintiffs failed to identify any part of the events or omissions giving rise to this case that occurred in New Mexico—much less a “substantial” part, which is reason enough to reject that argument.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events underlying a contract claim occurred, even if more of those events occurred elsewhere.

Smart Shoppers NYC LLC v. Tylers Coffee LLC · filed 2024-01-10(b)(2)

Thus, even if, arguendo, a greater proportion of the substantial and material events occurred in Arizona, New York is still a proper venue with respect to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

LEWIS v. BEN HILL COUNTY GEORGIA · filed 2023-12-27(b)

As Lewis’ allegations concern events that occurred exclusively in another district, the proper forum for this case is the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits an ADEA or FMLA claim to be brought in the district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to it occurred.

Laduke v. New York State Office of Mental Healthet al · filed 2024-01-05(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s claims all arose in Monroe County, which is in the Western District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 112(d); therefore, venue of Plaintiff’s ADEA and FMLA claims is proper in the Western District of New York, under Section 1391(b)(2), where the claims arose.

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.

Linn v. Louisiana Workforce Commission · filed 2024-01-10(b)(2)

The Court finds that this case was properly brought in the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Linn’s claim occurred within that District.

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

Mercer v. Williams · filed 2024-01-16(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) does not permit venue in a district where the events giving rise to a patent declaratory judgment claim occurred elsewhere.

ACCO Brands USA LLC v. Performance Designed Products LLC · filed 2024-01-17(b)(2)

Moreover, venue is not proper in Delaware under § 1391(b)(2) because the only events giving rise to this declaratory judgment claim—a presuit notice letter and four virtual meetings—occurred outside of this district.

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

Vernon v. McGlone · filed 2024-01-20(b)(2)

It is true that more of the relevant events took place in the Southern and Central Districts, but section 1391(b)(2) simply requires a substantial portion of the relevant events to have taken place in a district, not a majority of the material events.

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

Guidry-Davis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company · filed 2024-01-22(b)(2)

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

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

(PC) Reed v. Buckel · filed 2024-01-22(b)(2)

While Plaintiff has met the threshold burden of showing that at least some of his claims could have been raised in the Southern District, based on Plaintiff’s motion and the current allegations in the complaint, the Court does not find that a “substantial part” of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Southern District of California.

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

Lee v. City University N.Y. · filed 2024-01-22(b)(2)

Even if the Court assumes that venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), venue in the Eastern District of New York is also proper under both 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (2), as the substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at CUNY’s Kingsborough campus in Brooklyn.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in both districts when the events giving rise to a claim occurred in waters shared by those districts.

Noble v. Carter · filed 2024-01-22(b)(2)

Venue of Plaintiff’s claims arising at AMKC is therefore proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in both districts.

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

Allen v. John/Jane Doe · filed 2024-01-22(b)(2)

To the extent he seeks to bring new claims regarding his incarceration, he must file any new action in the District of Maryland, the proper venue for a claim arising at Jessup. See § 1391(b)(2).

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

Howell v. Baldwin County Board of Education · filed 2024-01-24(b)(2)

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

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

Glass v. L.A. County Metropolitan Authority · filed 2024-01-24(b)(2)

Venue under Section 1391(b)(2) is proper, however, in the Central District of California, where Plaintiff’s claims arose.

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

Smith v. Labarge · filed 2024-01-24(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Northern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers the claims brought against the Upstate Defendants to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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

Woods v. Broomfield · filed 2024-01-25(b)

Regardless, the proper venue for this claim is the Northern District of California. Woods is currently confined in and alleges the events occurred at San Quentin prison (see ECF 1, at 38–39; see also ECF 2, at 21–24), and Woods appealed this matter to Marin County (see ECF 1-2, at 4–5). All of those are within the Northern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). So, the proper venue for this claim is the Northern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (“A civil action may be brought in . . . a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . .”).

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

Etter v. Guerrero · filed 2024-01-25(b)(2)

With respect to § 1391(b)(2), the complaint does not allege that the events or conduct 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.

PATTERSON v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. · filed 2024-01-25(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Mr. Patterson’s claim occurred in a Walmart store in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

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

Lucy v. Securus Technologies (INMATE 2) · filed 2024-01-30(b)(2)

Furthermore, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the § 1983 claims occurred at Fountain Correctional Facility in the Southern District of Alabama. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires courts to determine whether substantial events material to the claims occurred in the district.

Johnson (PS) v. Wieser · filed 2024-01-31(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.

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

Jenkins v. Beckley · filed 2024-01-31(b)(2)

There is no indication that venue is proper in this judicial district. Instead, it is apparent that all of the events giving rise to Jenkins’s claims occurred in the Southern District of West Virginia, and venue is therefore proper there.

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

Columbus v. Dupree · filed 2024-02-01(b)(2)

Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because all events occurred within the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

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

Jefferson v. Guillen · filed 2024-02-05(b)

In this case, the claims arose in San Luis Obispo County, which is in the Central District of California.

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

(PC) Jefferson v. Guillen · filed 2024-02-05(b)(2)

In this case, the claims arose in San Luis Obispo County, which is in the Central District of California.

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.

Maina v. Somerset County Jail · filed 2024-02-05(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue for these claims lies in the District of New Jersey, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for a trademark claim in a district where consumers are likely to be confused by the accused goods.

Wavve Americas Incorporated v. Unknown Party · filed 2024-02-06(b)(2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a 11 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” ... Max’s websites are accessible to and likely to cause 16 confusion among consumers within this District. Therefore, venue is proper.

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

Leo v. Province Therapeutics, LLC · filed 2024-02-06(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1965 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this judicial district, where Leo worked for the Corporate Defendant.

Section 1391(f)(1) assesses whether events in a district are substantial by their importance to the claims, rather than by counting them.

AJ Ruiz Consultoria Empresarial S.A. v. Bank of China Limited · filed 2024-02-06(f)(1)

“‘Substantiality’ for venue purposes is more a qualitative than a quantitative inquiry.” Daniel, 428 F.3d at 432–33 (citations omitted). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s contention that they “allege[] more New York events than Concesionaria” is not availing.

Section 1391(f)(1) assesses whether events in a district are substantial by their connection to the claims, rather than by counting them.

AJ Ruiz Consultoria Empresarial S.A. v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. · filed 2024-02-06(f)(1)

Under section 1391(f)(1), venue is proper “in any judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” ... “‘Substantiality’ for venue purposes is more a qualitative than a quantitative inquiry.” Daniel, 428 F.3d at 432–33 (citations omitted). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s contention that they “allege[] more New York events than Concesionaria” is not availing.

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

Newbold v. HealthEquity Inc · filed 2024-02-07(b)(2)

Any discriminatory act alleged in the complaint therefore occurred and affected Plaintiffs in Utah. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not dispute that venue is appropriate in Utah. (ECF No. 50 at 3.) Accordingly, venue is proper in the District of Utah.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district containing the insured residence at issue in an insurance claim.

EWIDEH v. HOMESITE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST · filed 2024-02-07(b)(2)

The plaintiffs’ insured residence at issue here, as demonstrated in their insurance policy attached to the complaint, is in York, Pennsylvania. Thus, venue is appropriate in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and arguably in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

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

DAVIS v. WETZEL · filed 2024-02-07(b)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as the events giving rise to this action occurred in Fayette County, which is within the territorial boundaries of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, 28 U.S.C. § 118(c), and all Defendants are residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

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

Williams v. Billington · filed 2024-02-08(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the Southern District of Illinois.

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

Ferguson Enterprises, LLC v. GH Mechanical and Services, LLC · filed 2024-02-08(b)(2)

According to the Complaint, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in this judicial district. Namely, Defendant’s construction projects occurred, in part or in whole, in Orleans Parish and Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.34 Therefore, venue is proper in this district.

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

Joe v. FDNY · filed 2024-02-09(b)(2)

Venue is not proper here, however, under Section 1391(b)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Kings County, which falls within the Eastern District of New York.

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

Arnold v. Health Care Employees Employer Dental and Medical Trust · filed 2024-02-12(b)(2)

... rise to the claim occurred within the Central District of California. 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.

WAGNER v. LANDAIR TRANSPORT, INC · filed 2024-02-12(b)(2)

Because venue is proper under § 1391(b)(2), venue is neither "wrong" nor "improper," and the Court may not dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3) and § 1406.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue in a plaintiff’s home district based on its headquarters and wire payments when the substantial events giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.

UC Solutions, LLC v. Shapiro · filed 2024-02-12(b)(2)

For those reasons, the Court concludes that no “substantial” events giving rise to this case occurred in this District, as required to confer jurisdiction 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.

Abatayo v. Tella · filed 2024-02-13(b)(2)

Even if this court is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1), it is clear that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is also a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2). This is because Plaintiff’s claims appear to involve alleged attempts to evict Plaintiff from his Queens County apartment and either ongoing or anticipated proceedings before the Civil Court of the City of New York, Housing Part, Queens County, all within the Eastern District of New York.

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

WSP USA Buildings Inc. v. Coon · filed 2024-02-14(b)(2)

Therefore, the acts or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in the Northern District of California—where defendant has already initiated a lawsuit. ... Therefore, WSP has incorrectly laid venue in the Northern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a contract was entered into because its formation can be a substantial event giving rise to a contract dispute.

Hoeg v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. · filed 2024-02-15(b)(2)

It is well-settled that the location where a party entered a contract – even for sign-in-, slick-, or click-wrap agreements – surmises “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to” contractual disputes under subsection (2) of the venue statute.

The substantial-events venue rule permits an insurance coverage action in the district where the underlying assault occurred, even when venue is also proper elsewhere.

Canal Insurance Company v. Schaefer, Jr · filed 2024-02-16

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the alleged assault that took place in the Middle District of Tennessee is substantial enough such that it gives rise to 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.

Mulgrew v. United States Department of Transportation · filed 2024-02-17(b)(2)

Thus, 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.

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

Allah v. Pacheco · filed 2024-02-21(b)(2)

Venue is not proper here, however, under Section 1391(b)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims appear to have occurred in Brooklyn (Kings County), New York, which falls within the Eastern 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.

Crosby v. Neff · filed 2024-02-22(b)(2)

Thus, because no substantial part of Plaintiff’s claim occurred in this District, venue does not lie 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.

Viral DRM, LLC v. EVTV Miami Inc. · filed 2024-02-22(b)(2)

Finally, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Southern District of Florida.

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

Wingate v. Lowerre · filed 2024-02-23(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claims arose in Seneca County, venue is proper in the Western District of New York 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.

Cole v. 3 Circle Church, Inc. · filed 2024-02-26(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this judicial district.

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

Hankerson v. 61 pct. · filed 2024-02-26(b)(2)

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

Section 1391 permits venue in a judicial district where the claims arose.

CANDIDO v. UPPER DARBY TOWNSHIP · filed 2024-02-27

Venue is appropriate in this district, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because the claims arose in this judicial district.

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

TOLES v. NEWSOME · filed 2024-02-28(b)

As Toles’ allegations concern events that occurred exclusively in another district, the proper forum for this case is the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

Section 1391(b)(2) made the Eastern District of New York the only proper venue for the ADA access claim.

Shalto v. Broadway Barbers LIC INC. · filed 2024-02-28(b)(2)

Consequently, the Eastern District of New York is the only judicial district in which "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2).

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

Irving v. US Border Agency · filed 2024-02-28(b)(2)

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

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

Kenton v. The City of New York · filed 2024-02-28(b)(2)

It is also clear that, because the alleged events occurred in Long Island City, Queens County, New York, the Eastern District of New York is 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.

Moss v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · filed 2024-02-28(b)(2)

Yet, even if, under Section 1391(b)(1), this court were a proper venue, because it appears that the events that are the basis for Plaintiff’s claims occurred where Plaintiff alleges that he resides, in Elmont, Nassau County, New York, under Section 1391(b)(2), the Eastern District of New York is also a proper venue for this action.

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

VIDAL v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE CORPORATION · filed 2024-02-28(b)(2)

The relevant venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), provides that a civil action may be brought in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (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.” Here, since all the events at the center of this case occurred within York, Pennsylvania, venue is properly laid in the Middle District under the latter provision.

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

LAPIDOW v. SAN ANTONIO MARRIOTT RIVERCENTER · filed 2024-02-29(b)(2)

Venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The hotel where Plaintiff suffered her injuries and the events that give rise to her claims took place are in the Western 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.

(PC) Hill v. Jonathan · filed 2024-02-29(b)(2)

In this case, the claim arose in Napa County, which is in the Northern District of California.

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

Gelish v. Retro Predecessors USA Government and present USA President Joseph Biden · filed 2024-02-29(b)

The Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to replead these claims, however, because this District does not appear to be a proper venue to bring claims against these two Defendants, as the events giving rise to such claims would have occurred in Queens County, which is part of the Eastern District of New York.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue where the federal agency office processing an application makes the decisions giving rise to the claim.

Ghayoumi v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) · filed 2024-03-01(e)(1)(B)

For each Plaintiff, the relevant USCIS office makes decisions about each application, rendering that office the place where the “acts or omissions” giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred.

For a claim concerning delay in an asylum application, the USCIS office processing the application is a district where the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Solatidalaki v. US Citizenship & Immigration Service · filed 2024-03-01(e)(1)(B)

For each Plaintiff, the relevant USCIS office makes decisions about each application, rendering that office the place where the “acts or omissions” giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred.

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

Doe v. The University of North Carolina System · filed 2024-03-04(b)(2)

Taken together, these allegations demonstrate that a substantial portion of the alleged events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within the Western District. As a result, venue is proper here pursuant to 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.

Permobil, Inc. v. Westphal · filed 2024-03-07(b)(2)

Moreover, aside from the forum selection clause, based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Court finds that venue is proper here because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in Tennessee.

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

Associated General Contractors of America Inc v. Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council · filed 2024-03-12(e)(1)(B)

Thus, for venue to be proper in this district, it must be proper under § 1391(e)(1)(B), which allows suit to be brought “in any judicial district where … a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” ... For these reasons, the Court finds that venue is not proper in the Western District of Louisiana and the instant lawsuit will be transferred to a court having proper venue.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where a plaintiff attempted to use an allegedly inaccessible website.

Campbell v. Gallery Model Homes, Inc. · filed 2024-03-12(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York under § 1391(b)(2). Campbell, who resides in this District, alleges that she “attempted to utilize, on a number of occasions, the subject [w]ebsite within this [j]udicial [d]istrict.” FAC ¶ 13. Therefore, 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 a claim occurred, even if venue may also be proper elsewhere.

Triplett v. Superintendent · filed 2024-03-14(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that any 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 Great Meadow, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of New York.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue where the USCIS office processing an application makes the decisions giving rise to the claim.

Shaba v. US Citizenship & Immigration Service · filed 2024-03-01(e)(1)(B)

For each Plaintiff, the relevant USCIS office makes decisions about each application, rendering that office the place where the “acts or omissions” giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred.

For a claim concerning delay in a USCIS application, the office processing the application is a place where the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Matwaly v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2024-03-01(e)(1)(B)

For each Plaintiff, the relevant USCIS office makes decisions about each application, rendering that office the place where the “acts or omissions” giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred.

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

Baxton v. Hawk · filed 2024-03-14(b)(2)

The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Kings County, and venue under Section 1391(b)(2) thus is proper in the Eastern District of New York, where the claims arose.

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

(PC) Ramirez v. Pfeiffer · filed 2024-03-14(b)

In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff names prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison as the Defendants and acknowledges the incident at issue took place at Salinas Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 25, at 1-2.) Thus, under the second amended complaint, venue properly lies in United Stated District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

E. C. v. Choice Hotels International, Inc. · filed 2024-03-15(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” Because Plaintiff seeks relief for harms incurred from her trafficking that took place in the Central District of California, it is evident that a substantial part of the events giving rise to her claims occurred there.

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

Larmon v. Queens Berry Correctional · filed 2024-03-19(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make venue proper where a plaintiff merely learned that conduct occurring elsewhere was unlawful.

DiBenedetto v. Hard Rock Cafe International (USA), Inc. · filed 2024-03-22(b)(2)

Even if Plaintiff could somehow establish personal jurisdiction, venue is improper in this District. Plaintiff contends that venue is proper here because, according to Plaintiff, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in this District, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The Court disagrees.

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

Smith Roofing and Siding, L.L.C. v. Smith · filed 2024-03-26(b)(2)

Venue is proper because, while using Plaintiff’s name and similar mark, Defendants provide commercial and residential roofing services within the boundaries of the Eastern District of Idaho. Therefore, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to” Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a plaintiff attempted to use an inaccessible website and encountered the alleged discrimination, if a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in that district.

Velazquez v. Don Roberto Jewelers, Inc. · filed 2024-03-27(b)(2)

Velazquez’s attempts to access the Website are the acts that give rise to his claim, and a substantial part of those acts occurred in this District, where the suit was filed.

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

Henton v. The City of New York · filed 2024-03-19(b)(2)

Venue is not proper here, however, under Section 1391(b)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims appear to have occurred in Far Rockaway (Queens County), New York, which falls within the Eastern District of New York.

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.

Preston v. Rewerts · filed 2024-03-22(b)

Because Defendants are located in the Western District and the complaint concerns events arising there as well, venue is not proper in this district.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim against a federal agency to occur in the chosen district; potential effects felt there do not alone satisfy that requirement.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau · filed 2024-03-28(e)(1)(B)

The fact that there are customers of businesses in the Northern District of Texas that will potentially feel the effects of the Rule does not create a particularized injury in the Northern District of Texas, nor does it represent a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

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

Beaver v. Siemens Healthineers, AG · filed 2024-03-28(b)(2)

Here, Ms. Beaver avers that the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division is the appropriate venue for this action because that is where Ms. Beaver was employed by Siemens and where a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” occurred. ... Observing no dispute from Siemens that Ms. Beaver worked remotely from her home in Michigan, the Court agrees with Ms. Beaver’s reasoning that the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division is the proper venue to accept transfer.

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

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Nowak · filed 2024-03-28(b)(2)

The Court also declines to dismiss the complaint for improper venue. Chase alleges that a substantial portion of the relevant events arose in this district. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 8.) ... Venue appears to be proper, and Nowak raises no argument to the contrary. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (providing that a civil action may be brought in, among other districts, “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”).

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make a district a proper venue merely because demand letters and insurance claims were later sent there when the events giving rise to the action occurred elsewhere.

K & S Carriers LLC v. Total Quality Logistics LLC · filed 2024-03-29(b)(2)

The letters and insurance claims that defendants later sent to Wisconsin do not constitute a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action.

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

AIG Europe, S.A. v. Sears Holding Corporation · filed 2024-04-03(b)(2)

Accordingly, it is clear that Plaintiff has made prima facie showing that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in this district.

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

WISHON v. JACKSON STATE PRISON · filed 2024-04-02(b)

As Wishon’s allegations concern events that occurred exclusively in another district, the proper forum for this case is the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.