28 U.S.C. § 1391

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

Greene v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. · filed 2024-04-03(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claims arose in Alameda County, venue under Section 1391(b)(2) is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.

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

Turner v. Wilson · filed 2024-04-04(b)(2)

Here, Petitioner seeks relief based on actions alleged to have occurred exclusively in Tarrant County, Texas. ... Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is therefore proper in the Northern District of Texas.

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

Williams v. Amazon · filed 2024-04-04(b)(2)

Under Section 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York, where Plaintiff worked and where a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred.

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

Buckner v. City of New York · filed 2024-04-08(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that a substantial part of the events giving rise to her claims occurred in this District, this court is not a proper venue under Section 1391(b)(2).

A district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred is a proper venue for the action.

Marshall v. Vaughn · filed 2024-04-08(b)(2)

It is clear, however, that, because the alleged events occurred in Ithaca, in Tompkins County (ECF 1, at 18-19), which is within the Northern District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 112(a), 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 in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; in a trademark suit, that can include a district where the accused websites are likely to confuse consumers.

Whaleco Incorporated v. Temureviewer.com · filed 2024-04-09(b)(2)

Venue is proper because the Infringing Domain Names were registered with Namecheap in Arizona, and the websites were accessible and likely to cause confusion among consumers within this District.

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

Arcona v. Camden County Drug Court · filed 2024-04-15(b)(2)

Venue under Section 1391(b)(2) does lie in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, because a substantial part of Plaintiff’s claims appear to have arisen 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.

Greene v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. · filed 2024-04-17(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claims arose in Alameda County, venue under Section 1391(b)(2) is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

Moeller-Bertram v. Gemini Trust Company, LLC · filed 2024-04-29(b)(2)

Venue likewise lies in Connecticut because DCG’s principal place of business is in Connecticut and a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims therefore occurred in Connecticut.

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.

Beverley v. Jam Electric, LLC · filed 2024-04-29(b)(2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), a civil action can 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.” Venue is appropriate in the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claim at issue occurred in Orange County, Florida.3 (Doc. 1 ¶ 5); Local Rule 1.04(a) (stating that the Orlando Division encompasses Orange County).

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

LEHRER v. BLUE MOUNTAIN RESORT · filed 2024-04-30(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania because it is undisputed the accident occurred entirely in that district6.

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

Malave v. Price · filed 2024-05-08(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claims arose outside this district, venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Williams v. Hardin County Detention Center · filed 2024-05-10(b)(2)

Thus, while it is clear that this court is not a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2), it is also clear that, under the same provision, that the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky 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.

Zapata v. Stefanski · filed 2024-05-10(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim to occur in the district; an online presence alone does not establish venue there.

Wander.com Inc v. Virtuoso Ltd · filed 2024-05-13(b)(2)

Wander’s online presence in the Western District, alone, does not establish that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims at issue occurred in this district.2 Venue is therefore improper in the Western District.

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

Reaves v. Arthur · filed 2024-05-14(b)(2)

Further, should any individual Defendant not be a South Carolina resident, venue would still be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as Plaintiff has alleged that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in this judicial district.

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

Barfell v. Driveline Retail Merchandising · filed 2024-05-16(b)(2)

Based on plaintiff’s allegations, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in Taylorville, Illinois, where defendants Driveline, Meyer and Neville are located.

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

Graham v. New York City Department of Education · filed 2024-05-16(b)(2)

In addition, it appears that the alleged events giving rise to his claims largely occurred in Brooklyn, making the Eastern District of New York a proper venue for his claims under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Wade v. Zavala · filed 2024-05-20(b)(2)

Although Plaintiff’s Complaint and Response could be more robust, the Court nevertheless finds that Plaintiff has met his prima facie burden to show that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim—namely, Defendant’s alleged breach of the insurance policy—occurred in Colorado.

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

Jones v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company · filed 2024-05-28(b)(2)

Even if the Court assumes 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 Fort Lauderdale, Florida, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Southern District of Florida.

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

Davis v. Dome · filed 2024-05-30(b)(2)

Because Davis alleges no events or omissions giving rise to his claims that occurred in this judicial district, his claims against Dome and Muldowney are not properly filed here.

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. KIA GEORGIA INC · filed 2024-06-03(b)(2)

Finally, the Newnan Division is an appropriate venue for this action because the events giving rise to Williams’s claims occurred in the Troup County facility and 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).

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

Shenzhen Aji Fashion Technology Co. Ltd. v. WhaleCo Inc. · filed 2024-06-05(b)(2)

The allegations that the Store Defendants acted in concert with WhaleCo to use Shenzhen’s trademark and copyrighted material, and to sell infringing products on Temu.com, suggest that a “substantial part” of the events underlying Shenzhen’s claims against those defendants similarly took place in Massachusetts, where WhaleCo is based.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred; for trademark claims, sales and intentional targeting in the district inform that inquiry.

This, LLC v. HolaBelle, Inc. · filed 2024-06-12(b)(2)

Without additional evidence as to the number of Mallosticks sales in Connecticut and whether the HolaBelle Defendants intended to reach Connecticut, the Court cannot find that a substantial part of the events giving rise to TLLC’s claims occurred in Connecticut.

Section 1391(b) governs venue for § 1983 claims and permits suit in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Lyon v. Collier Case as to Joe Tovar only electronically transferred to the Northern District of Te · filed 2024-06-14(b)

Because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not contain a specific venue provision, venue is determined under the general venue provision found in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Under that provision, venue is proper in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) does not establish venue based on a plaintiff’s spouse’s employment in a district when the claims arise from the plaintiff’s own visa application elsewhere.

Zhang v. Dehart · filed 2024-06-17(e)(1)(B)

That Zhang’s wife works for a Washington resident is not sufficient to establish that the events or omissions that gave rise to this lawsuit occurred in this district, however. None of the claims in the complaint relate to Zhang’s wife’s visa or her visa application: they instead focus entirely on Zhang’s visa application.

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

TENNARO-MESSINA v.MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL INC. · filed 2024-06-20(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 place where the events that give rise to her claims occurred are in the Southern District of Florida.

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

Gu v. Chen · filed 2024-06-20(b)(2)

Accordingly, under Section 1391(b)(2), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and not this court, is a proper venue for this action.

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

La Belle Distributors, Inc. v. United States · filed 2024-06-25(b)

As discussed, Plaintiff's allegations make clear the Eastern District of Michigan constitutes a “judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Floyd v. Squires · filed 2024-07-03(b)

This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred at the Cook County Jail, which is located in the Northern District of Illinois.

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.

Grams v. Treis Blockchain, LLC · filed 2024-07-08(b)(2)

While it is true that numerous events related to this litigation occurred in Pennsylvania and South Carolina, (see, e.g., doc. 52 at 14, 33), a substantial part of the events leading to this lawsuit occurred within the Middle District of Alabama. It may be that venue is also proper in another district, but whether a different venue is also appropriate is not determinative of whether this venue is appropriate.

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

Engineering and Inspection Services, LLC v. New Rise Renewables Reno, LLC · filed 2024-07-10(b)(2)

Second, venue is not proper under Subsection (b)(2) because Plaintiff has not identified “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [Plaintiff’s] claim[s]” that “occurred” in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Id. § 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.

Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Hanifan · filed 2024-07-10(b)(2)

Venue is permissible 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). For the same reasons as the Court gave in finding that it may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant, it finds that venue is appropriate in this Court, at least for the limited purpose of this Order.

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

Etuk v. New York City Police Dept. · filed 2024-07-10(b)(2)

The Court can conclude that venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2) because the alleged events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims primarily occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, 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 giving rise to a claim occurred.

Gu v. Chen · filed 2024-07-11(b)(2)

Venue of these claims is proper in the Eastern District of New York, where the claims arose, 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.

Duncan v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau · filed 2024-06-28(b)(2)

Even if the Court assumes that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in South Carolina, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the District of South Carolina.

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

Francois v. Richman · filed 2024-06-28(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 Kings County, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Jean v. HRA · filed 2024-07-11(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 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, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated; ... Because a substantial part of the operative events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in the Southern District, it is likely that the bulk of discovery would occur in the Southern District, many witnesses would reside in the Southern District, and it would not pose great burden for those witnesses or parties who resided in the Eastern District to travel to the Southern District.

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

Litchmore-Smith v. Alan J. Waintraub, Esq. · filed 2024-07-02(b)(2)

In addition, because the plaintiff alleges that the real properties at issue are located in Kings County, and that a significant portion of the alleged events occurred in Kings County, within the Eastern District of New York, see § 112(c), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is clearly a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires events in the chosen district to have a sufficiently close nexus to the claims to count as a substantial part of the events giving rise to them.

Inter Insurance Agency Services Ltd. v. Insurance Department of the State of Oklahoma · filed 2024-07-15(b)(2)

Though Plaintiffs allege background facts that involve this district—primarily a 2019 in-person audit occurring in the Eastern District of New York and communications sent between Defendants in Oklahoma and Plaintiffs in the Eastern District—these events did not directly give rise to the claims brought by Plaintiffs nor do they bear a sufficiently close nexus to the claims to qualify as “a substantial part” for purposes of venue.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial connection between the district and the events or omissions giving rise to the claim; an employee’s work in the district is insufficient when the challenged policies were adopted elsewhere.

Bains v. American Tactical, Inc. · filed 2024-07-15(b)(2)

While a district need not be the “best venue” to satisfy § 1391(b)(2), it must be “a logical one with a substantial connection to the litigation.” Reliance Ins. Co. v. Polyvision Corp., 474 F.3d 54, 59 (2d Cir. 2007). This District does not satisfy that standard in either of these cases.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial connection between the district and the events or omissions giving rise to the claims; the district need not be the best venue.

Johal v. American Tactical, Inc. · filed 2024-07-15(b)(2)

While a district need not be the “best venue” to satisfy § 1391(b)(2), it must be “a logical one with a substantial connection to the litigation.” Reliance Ins. Co. v. Polyvision Corp., 474 F.3d 54, 59 (2d Cir. 2007). This District does not satisfy that standard in either of these cases. The Court therefore agrees with the ATI Defendants that venue is not proper in this District.

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

DeBellis v. Woodit · filed 2024-07-19(b)(2)

Thus, the events siving rise to the claim occurred in Florida, and venue would have been permissible in the Middle 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.

WEST v. NNIT, INC. · filed 2024-07-23(b)(2)

Under 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.” ’ 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of events giving rise to this claim took place in Augusta, Georgia where Plaintiff resides, worked, and met with his doctor with respect to the medical leave at issue in this case.

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

Greyhound Lines Inc v. Western Trails Charters & Tours LLC · filed 2024-07-24(b)(2)

Thus, venue is proper here as a substantial part of the events that gave rise to this lawsuit occurred within the Northern District of Texas.

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

Northwell Health, Inc. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. · filed 2024-08-02(b)

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 Northwell’s principal place of business is located.

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

PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY A/S/O KOONS OF TYSONS CORNER, INC. v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVI · filed 2024-08-06(b)(2)

As a preliminary matter, venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in this case occurred there. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 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)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, even if the injury occurred elsewhere.

Duvall v. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC. · filed 2024-08-09(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.”2 The requirement of substantiality in section 1391 is “intended to preserve the element of fairness so that a Defendant is not haled into a remote district having no real relationship to the dispute.” Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc. v. Martino, 36 F.3d 291, 294 (3d Cir.1994). Based upon the same considerations discussed above, I also find that venue is proper.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where in-district acts have a close nexus to the claim, even if the alleged confinement occurred elsewhere.

Dixon v. Reid · filed 2024-08-13(b)(2)

In short, Plaintiff has adequately established a prima facie case that venue is proper in this district as the site of a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the false imprisonment claim.

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

Hundal v. Burger King Company LLC · filed 2024-08-13(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, including communications sent into the district that directly caused the alleged injuries.

Mackey v. Airbnb, Inc. · filed 2024-08-14(b)(2)

Venue in the Southern District of Mississippi is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Mackey’s claims occurred in Mississippi.

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

Pierre v. Doe · filed 2024-08-14(b)(2)

Thus, 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.

Etuk v. City of New York · filed 2024-08-15(b)(2)

Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2) because the alleged events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Kings County, 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 giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property at issue is located.

A-7 Austin, LLC v. Bridgestone HosePower, LLC · filed 2024-08-15(b)(2)

Venue is proper in any judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... A substantial part of the property — the confidential information, trade secrets, and the servers — is also located within the Northern District of Texas.

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

Downing v. Jacobs · filed 2024-08-06(b)(2)

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

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

Moses Taylor Foundation v. Coverys · filed 2024-08-07(b)(2)

Further, venue is appropriate because the actions detailed in the amended complaint occurred in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

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

Naveda v. Post Office at 250-10 Northern Blvd. · filed 2024-08-12(b)(2)

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

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

Delaney v. Pennel · filed 2024-08-13(b)(2)

Thus, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois is a proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983 and under state law against the non-federal-agency defendants pursuant to 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.

Doe 1 v. Juvenile Bureau of Tulsa County District Court · filed 2024-08-15(b)(2)

As previously stated, this case clearly could have been brought in the Northern District of Oklahoma pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2).

Section 1391 makes venue proper in the district where the conduct underlying the claim allegedly occurred.

(PC) Brummett v. Martinez · filed 2024-08-14(b)(2)

Venue is proper because the conduct allegedly occurred in this judicial district.

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

Gucci America, Inc v. Lord & Taylor Ecomm LLC · filed 2024-08-16(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Sections 1391(b) and (c) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), because a substantial portion of the events at issue occurred in this judicial district due to Defendant’s transaction of business herein.

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

Flores v. United States of America · filed 2024-08-16(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s claims arise from events allegedly occurring in MDC Brooklyn, in Kings County, New York, which lies within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). Thus, 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.

Holifield v. NexusCw, Inc. · filed 2024-08-20(b)(2)

Venue would also be proper in the District of New Jersey as a substantial part of the events, at least pertaining to Plaintiff Holifield and the New Jersey Class Members, occurred there.

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

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Patient Access Solutions, Inc. · filed 2024-08-22(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district because the transactions and courses of business alleged in the Complaint giving rise to the claim occurred within the Eastern District of New York.

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

Shophar v. Sloan · filed 2024-08-27(b)(2)

Here, accepting the well-pled allegations as true, Shophar complains of conduct (defamation) in this judicial district for his claims. Accordingly, the Court finds venue is proper in this judicial district.

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

Horne v. Thurman · filed 2024-08-29(b)(2)

As the incidents underlying Plaintiff’s complaint occurred in Davidson County, Tennessee, Plaintiff could have filed his complaint in the Middle District of Tennessee. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 123(b)(1).

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

The Estate of Ruth Ann Johnson v. Law Offices of David A. Sims, PLLC · filed 2024-08-30(b)(2)

Therefore, the Court finds Mr. Harrison and the Sims Defendants have failed to show that venue in this District is proper under § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in the district where the plaintiff purchased the product at issue.

Cohen v. eSupplements, LLC · filed 2024-08-20(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because Cohen purchased the Product in this judicial district.

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

Carden v. Springfield Mortuary Service Inc · filed 2024-09-03(b)(2)

So even if a substantial part of events giving rise to Carden’s claims occurred in Missouri, a substantial part of relevant events also happened in the Northern District of Alabama, making venue proper here under § 1391(b)(2).

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

Head v. Coastal Alabama Community College · filed 2024-09-03(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 and because the individual defendants reside 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.

Vega v. PBS Construction LLC · filed 2024-09-03(b)(2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), a civil action can 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.” Venue is appropriate in the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claim at issue occurred in Orange County, Florida.

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

O'Bannon v. RMM Holdings Inc. · filed 2024-09-05(b)(2)

Venue is proper in any “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). ... For starters, this case could have been filed in Covington. A substantial portion of the underlying events occurred in Carrollton, Kentucky, which is located in the Eastern District. Both Frankfort and Covington are within 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, including a district where alleged trademark infringement is likely to confuse consumers.

Original Dells, Inc. v. Soul 1 Entertainment Group · filed 2024-09-05(b)(2)

Finally, venue is proper in this judicial district. ... Since Waldorf, Maryland, is within the Southern Division of the District of Maryland, and Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ activities are likely to confuse “the consuming public as to the affiliation, connection or association of Defendants” with The Dells, id. at 17, venue is proper in this district, see, e.g., Earth Wind & Fire IP, LLC v. Substantial Music Grp. LLC, No. 23-20884-CIV, 2023 WL 11883729, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2023) (concluding that venue was proper in one of the many judicial districts where defendants had promoted, advertised, and held concerts).

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

Government Employees Insurance Company v. Wilkins Williams Medical, P.C. · filed 2024-09-06(b)(2)

Because Plaintiffs allege that a “substantial amount of the activities forming the basis of the” Amended Complaint occurred in the Eastern District of New York, venue in this district is proper.

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

Smith v. Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University Board of Trustees · filed 2024-09-11(b)(2)

The Court is mindful that cases should be brought and tried in the district “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... Accordingly, Plaintiff could have commenced this action in the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division.

Section 1391(b) limits the districts in which a civil action may be filed.

Padilla v. Lumpkin, Director of Texas Prison System · filed 2024-09-04(b)

As explained in the transfer order, however, the district court in which a civil action may be filed is circumscribed by the venue provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

McKenzie v. Warren · filed 2024-09-11(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, not this court, is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1). In addition, because Plaintiff alleges that the events that are the bases for her claims occurred in Queens County, New York (ECF 1 ¶ III), 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). As Plaintiff does not allege that any of the events that are the bases for her claims occurred within this judicial district, this court is not 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.

Medina v. Valdez · filed 2024-09-04(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). ... As such, this action could have been filed in the Ocala division.

Section 1391(b) supports venue where the events giving rise to the claims occurred; naming supervisory officials with no actual connection to the claims did not establish venue in their district.

(PC) Haag v. Macomber · filed 2024-09-05(b)

The events which form the basis of plaintiff’s claims occurred in San Bernardino County making the United States District Court for the Central District of California the most appropriate forum for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The only connection to this district is plaintiff’s identification of certain California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials who appear to work in Sacramento in a supervisory capacity as defendants. Because liability in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case cannot be premised upon a theory of respondeat superior, Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.3d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978), and the defendants identified have no actual connection at this point to plaintiff’s claims, the Eastern District is not a proper venue.

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

Robinson v. IRS Employees · filed 2024-09-10(b)(2)

Venue is clearly proper in the District of Nebraska as the defendant has a presence in this district and the events that are the subject of the Complaint occurred here. As such, the Court finds that a change in venue is not warranted.

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

Antigua v. DHS/ICE · filed 2024-09-10(b)

The complaint alleges no factual content regarding events or omissions within this District. Accordingly, this action “could have been brought” in the Western District of New York but not here, as it stands.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in the district where the alleged events took place.

Jones v. Brookhaven National Lab · filed 2024-09-10(b)(2)

Venue in the Eastern District of New York is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the alleged events took place in Suffolk County, which is in the Eastern District of New York.

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

McKenzie v. October · filed 2024-09-10(b)(2)

The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims all occurred in Brooklyn, and therefore venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(2) based on the location where the claims arose.

Section 1391(b) does not provide venue in the Eastern District of New York for claims against a Connecticut attorney arising from Connecticut proceedings on these facts.

Sullivan v. Xu · filed 2024-09-04(b)

The Eastern District of New York is not the proper venue for claims related to defendant Brougham or that occurred in Connecticut.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, but a district with no alleged events is not a proper venue under that subsection.

Flores v. Vang · filed 2024-09-12(b)(2)

As Plaintiff does not allege that any of the events that are the bases for her claims occurred within this judicial district, this court is not 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.

Huffman v. Blue Compass RV, LLC · filed 2024-09-13(b)(2)

The first issue is whether the proposed transferee venue is one in which proper venue lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The court finds that the Northern 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. See id. § 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.

HUFFMAN v. C. LARGE · filed 2024-09-17(b)(2)

Likewise, it appears that all the events or omissions giving rise to Huffman’s action occurred within the Western District of Virginia as the claims pertain solely to the denial of medical care at SWVRJA Duffield. As such, it appears that venue is properly laid in the Western District of Virginia.

Section 1391(b) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim to occur in the district when the defendants reside elsewhere and the action can be brought in another district.

Arora Technology Group, LLC v. Davis · filed 2024-09-19(b)

As Defendants do not live in Pennsylvania, and as there is no dispute that the case could be bought in Georgia, venue lies in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania only if a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred here. ... In this case, there is no evidence that the alleged actions central to this litigation – the preferred payments to Trax – occurred in Pennsylvania.

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

Walton v. Federal National Mortgage Association · filed 2024-09-16(b)(2)

A venue is proper if, for example, it is 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). Since all events underlying this case occurred in Indiana and the property at issue is located there, it is clear that Plaintiff could have brought her case in the Hoosier State.

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

Tolbert v. Nationstar L.L.C. · filed 2024-09-20(b)

Based on Plaintiff’s Complaint, no parties reside in the Southern District of Illinois. Additionally, no events based in the Complaint occurred in the Southern District of Illinois. Venue is therefore improper in this district.

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

(PC) Bunn v. Robertson · filed 2024-09-16(b)

In this case, the defendants are located and the claim arose in Del Norte 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.

Manuela v. Tower Auto Mall, Inc. · filed 2024-09-23(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Queens County, within the Eastern District of New York, venue would be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the United States District Court for that judicial district.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue based on transportation from a district when that transportation lacks a close connection to the claims and the alleged abuse and failures to prevent it occurred elsewhere.

Doe 2 v. The Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary · filed 2024-09-24(b)(2)

Defendants’ transportation of plaintiffs to school does not have a “close nexus” with any of their claims. To illustrate, the substance of plaintiffs’ negligence claims would be identical had plaintiffs’ parents seen their children off to Sacred Hearts Academy themselves, rather than relying on defendants for transportation. Venue in the Eastern District is therefore inappropriate.

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

Berrocal v. Boyd · filed 2024-09-24(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a plaintiff attempted to access an allegedly inaccessible website when that attempt is a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

Toro v. Cowtown Boot Company · filed 2024-09-26(b)(2)

As CBC does not reside in New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) applies. ... Toro attempted to access the website in the Southern District of New York. ... Therefore, venue is proper in the Southern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make a district a proper venue merely because contract payments were to be sent there when the events giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.

NALABOTU v. OMNIA INVESTMENT ADVISORS LLC · filed 2024-09-27(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) if a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the Southern District of Indiana. ... The "historical predicate" of Nalabotu's claim did not take place in Indiana. ... Indiana is not the proper venue for this suit.

Section 1391(b)(2) makes venue proper where events in the district form a substantial part of the basis for the claim.

Walker v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2024-09-30(b)(2)

Thus, that Walker accessed the platform and purchased the tax liens from this District suffices to make venue proper here under § 1391(b)(2).

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

State of Tennessee v. Ideal Horizon Benefits, LLC · filed 2024-09-30(b)(2)

Mosaic’s application of § 1391 is improper. ... Rather, venue is proper in a judicial district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim took place. ... Because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Kentucky’s claims took place in Tennessee, Mosaic’s Motion to Dismiss the Kentucky claims for improper venue is DENIED.

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

The Cumberland Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Dolceamore · filed 2024-09-27(b)(2)

Here, the complaint reveals that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” appear to have occurred in Delaware County within the venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

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

BEEMAC, INC. v. GLASS AMERICA OF ILLINOIS, LLC · filed 2024-10-01(b)(2)

Beemac does not dispute that venue is proper in the Southern District of Alabama because the accident giving rise to the claims occurred in that district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... The Court finds that jurisdiction and venue are proper in both the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Southern District of Alabama.

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

Smith v. Alfred M. Arraj Federal Courthouse · filed 2024-10-02(b)(2)

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

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

Zloza v. City of New Lisbon · filed 2024-10-02(b)

The federal venue statute generally provides that a civil action may be brought in the judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State where the district is located, or in the judicial district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Since not all Defendants reside in the same State, the appropriate judicial district is where a substantial part of the events occurred; presumably, New Lisbon and Mauston, Wisconsin, both of which are within the Western District of Wisconsin.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district for claims arising from incidents at prisons in other districts when no statutory basis for venue exists there.

Ross v. U.S. · filed 2024-10-01(b)

And aside from these claims being improperly joined, this District is not the proper venue to consider Plaintiff’s claims arising from incidents that occurred while he was housed in Manchester FCI or Gilmer FCI. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391 determines venue by judicial district; claims arising at prisons in different districts do not share a proper venue merely because both districts are in the same circuit.

Strobel v. United States of America · filed 2024-10-04(b)

Plaintiff suggests that venue in this Court is proper for all of his claims because FCI-Florence and FCIL are both in the same circuit. (Doc. 1, at 1; Doc. 15, at 2.) However, they are not in the same district. ... Therefore, Plaintiff should only include claims relating to his incarceration at FCIL in his amended complaint. If he believes he has claims based on his incarceration at FCI-Florence and against FCI-Florence defendants, he should bring those in a separate action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

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

GENEROATH CO. LTD. v. MADAN · filed 2024-10-11(b)(2)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendant has not sustained his 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 a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Hancock Whitney Bank v. FLC Living, LLC · filed 2024-10-17(b)(2)

Hancock Whitney has established that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise” to Hancock Whitney’s claims occurred in the Southern District of Alabama. ... Thus, 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 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Montenero v. Marriot Hotel Services, LLC · filed 2024-10-17(b)(2)

Under Section 1391(b)(2), venue is appropriate where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” Mr. Montenero’s slip and fall and Defendant’s alleged negligence both took place in Marco Island, Florida. See Cmpl. ¶¶ 11-17. These constitute at least a “substantial part” of the present claims, making venue appropriate in the Middle 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.

Hrejn v. Centurion Medical Group · filed 2024-10-18(b)(2)

Here, because Avon Park C.I. is where a “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim[s] occurred,” Plaintiff properly filed her original complaint in the Middle District, and venue is improper here.

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

Price v. Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. · filed 2024-10-18(b)(2)

Pursuant to Section 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). ... As such, the actions or omissions Defendant took occurred in Philadelphia, and thus the current civil action may be brought in Philadelphia.

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

Ramani v. Macy's Inc. · filed 2024-10-22(b)(2)

Accordingly, even if this court is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1), 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)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred or the property at issue is located.

Nwosu v. Brookfield Corporation · filed 2024-10-15(b)(2)

Accordingly, even if this court is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1), the ... United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas 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 occurred or a substantial part of the property at issue is situated.

Merchia v. Pascack VA Group, LCC · filed 2024-10-15(b)(2)

This district is also not a proper venue under Section 1391(b)(2) because (1) the subject property is located in Massachusetts and (2) Plaintiff corresponded with the majority of the Defendants at their offices located in Boston, Massachusetts.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of either the defendants’ relevant conduct or its resulting events occurred.

Riddley v. Coopersurgical, Inc. · filed 2024-10-23(b)(2)

In other words, if either a substantial part of (1) the relevant acts or omissions of the defendants, or (2) the events resulting from those acts or omissions occurred in this judicial district, a motion to dismiss or to transfer for improper venue should generally be denied.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including the alleged taking of trade secrets through recruitment in the district.

True Velocity Ammunitions, LLC v. SIG Sauer, Inc. · filed 2024-10-25(b)(2)

The Court also notes that “[t]he gravamen of a complaint for misappropriation is the wrongful taking of a trade secret,” and in this case the “taking” arguably took place in Vermont with the recruitment of GD-OTS employees. Universal Marine Med. Supply, Inc. v. Lovecchio, 8 F. Supp. 2d 214, 220 (E.D.N.Y. 1998). Venue is therefore 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.

Alexander v. City of New York · filed 2024-10-29(b)(2)

Even if venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s 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 venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Morfessis v. Alro Steel Corporation · filed 2024-11-07(b)(2)

The parties do not dispute, and the court agrees, that venue would be proper in the District of Maryland under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of Maryland.

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

Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Active Medical Care, P.C. · filed 2024-11-14(b)(2)

The parties do not dispute that this action could have been brought in the District of New Jersey. Two of the three defendants are New Jersey citizens, and substantial events giving rise to the claims took place there. See, 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2); Dealtime.com Ltd. v. McNulty, 123 F. Supp.2d 750, 754–55 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).

Section 1391(b) does not make a district a proper venue when no events or omissions giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred there.

Lathus v. Rigg · filed 2024-11-18(b)

The Court also concludes that the District of New Mexico is not the proper venue for this action because there are no allegations indicating that any of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the District of New Mexico.

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

Horowitz v. Emerald Nutraceuticals, LLC. · filed 2024-11-22(b)(2)

None of the Defendants reside in Florida, so Plaintiff must show that a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claims occurred in the Middle District of Florida. He has not done so.

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

Rogers v. Bowflex Inc. · filed 2024-11-26(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 New Jersey, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the District of New Jersey.

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

Stallard v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. · filed 2024-11-27(b)(2)

Accordingly, the Court transfers the plaintiff’s copyright, trademark, and state law claims to a “district in which a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim[s] occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), that being the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

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

DIRVIN v. GARRISON PROPERT AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY · filed 2024-12-17(b)(2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) and (b)(2), “proper venue for a civil action” includes, inter alia, any “judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), (b)(2). This dispute arises out of an alleged breach of a New Jersey automobile insurance contract. Because the governing contract was established in New Jersey, the District of New Jersey is an appropriate forum.

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

ELDRIDGE v. WALMART SUPERCENTER-STORE 2561 · filed 2024-12-30(b)(2)

Plaintiff asserts her injuries occurred in a Walmart Supercenter located in Erie, Pennsylvania. Thus, venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania under § 1391(b)(2).

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

Zanoni v. Bry · filed 2024-12-31(b)(2)

As noted, under 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. Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s fraudulent marketing occurred in North Carolina, and Plaintiff signed the Lease in North Carolina, Plaintiff first learned of the Property’s alleged Deficiencies in California while renting the Property. Thus, no part, let alone a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim, occurred in North Carolina. Rather, the events relating to the dispute occurred in Malibu, California. Consequently, venue is not proper in North Carolina, and Plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case for venue 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.

Bellevue v. The City of New York · filed 2025-01-06(b)(2)

It is clear, however, that venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York because Plaintiff asserts that the alleged events giving rise to his claims occurred in Kings County, which falls within the Eastern District.

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

Boone v. Equifax Information Services LLC · filed 2025-01-07(b)(2)

Considering the complete sequence of events, Plaintiff has alleged beginning a financing application inside of North Carolina, an error being made outside of North Carolina, and then finalizing the financing agreement with a deficient and harmful result inside of North Carolina. This story begins and ends in North Carolina. The plaintiff must only make a prima facie showing of venue, Aggarao v. MOL Ship Mgmt. Co., Ltd., 675 F.3d 355, 366 (4th Cir. 2012), and that showing has been made here. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of North Carolina, and Plaintiff Boone’s complaint will not be dismissed on this ground.

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

Alexander v. The City of New York · filed 2025-01-08(b)(2)

Transfer of this action to the Southern District of New York is appropriate. The events giving rise to the complaint occurred at Bellevue Hospital in New York County, within the Southern 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.

Gidea v. OWEGO Police Department · filed 2025-01-10(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 Tioga County, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue for a medical malpractice claim where the relevant treatment occurred in another district and local billing and patient processing were incidental to the claim.

P.C. v. Driscoll · filed 2025-01-15(b)(2)

The allegations that Plaintiff paid the billing representative of Goals Aesthetics, which is a New York corporation and located in New York, Dkt. No. 47 ¶ 26, that Goals “from New York” was “handling various billing and patient functions around the medical care and treatment and processed patients for surgery,” id. ¶ 28, and that Defendants “controlled from New York which facility would perform the surgery for patients such as Plaintiff,” id., do not support venue in the Southern District of New York.

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

Osborne v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2025-01-17(b)(2)

Because the alleged damage occurred in the MDLA and forms the basis for this action, plaintiffs’ correctly argue that subsection (b)(2) authorizes the venue in the latter District.

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

McIntosh v. Parks · filed 2025-01-21(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that at least one 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 Monroe County, 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.

Hill v. The New York City Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services · filed 2025-01-22(b)(2)

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

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

Leon v. The Kroger Co. · filed 2025-01-27(b)(2)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) provides that venue is proper in the district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. ... Because a substantial part of the events took place there, venue is proper in that 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.

HAMMONDS v. PURDUE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES · filed 2025-01-28(b)(2)

As to the first prong, venue is proper in the Northern District of Indiana (the proposed transferee court) because "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred" in the Northern District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

France v. Bernstein · filed 2025-01-30(b)(2)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) provides that venue is proper in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred ....” ... Accordingly, this Court again finds that venue is appropriate in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

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

Berkley Insurance Company v. Demerath · filed 2025-01-30(b)(2)

While this may establish that the suit could have been brought in Florida, § 1391(b)(2) contemplates that venue may be proper in multiple districts and the Court need not determine “which district among two or more potential forums is the 'best' venue.”

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

Stinson v. Lopez · filed 2025-01-31(b)(2)

Thus, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and not this court, is a proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims under Bivens, pursuant to Section 1391(b)(2), and for his claims under the FTCA, pursuant to Section 1402(b).

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

Bank of Commerce & Trust Company v. BancCentral National Association · filed 2025-02-04(b)(2)

On these facts, the Court cannot conclude that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in Kansas. Accordingly, under Section 1391, venue in this district is improper.

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

PIPELINE MEDICAL LLC v. PANAJOTI CONSULTING, LLC · filed 2025-02-04(b)(2)

Moreover, Defendant, who would receive the benefit of any sale in Michigan, allegedly failed to send the COVID-19 test kits to Plaintiff. These facts establish that the relevant events took place in Michigan.4 See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (providing that a civil action may be brought in any 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.

Abdullah v. Department of Corrections · filed 2025-02-11(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 Attica Correctional Facility, 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.

Henry v. Hill-Lilly · filed 2025-02-18(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that both 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 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.

Griffin v. Syngenta Crop Protection AG · filed 2025-02-19(b)(2)

The motion to dismiss for improper venue is denied because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the Eastern District of Arkansas. 28 U.S.C. section 1391 allows cases to be brought in the judicial district where a substantial part of the events or property is located, or where a court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant if the other provisions do not apply.

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

Soliz v. James G. Davis Construction Corporation · filed 2025-02-11(b)(2)

Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b)(2) as many of the events or omissions giving rise to CAK’s claims against the Velasquez Defendants arose within this District.

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

Ascent AeroSystems Inc. v. Hill · filed 2025-02-20(b)(2)

Venue in the Northern District of New York 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” there.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue where a plaintiff relocates and maintains an office if the events giving rise to the claims occurred elsewhere.

Asbury v. Arriaga · filed 2025-02-20(b)(2)

Just because Plaintiff has chosen to relocate to Florida and maintains an office here serving Oregon clients, such facts do not provide a sufficient basis to support venue in the Middle District of Florida.

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.

Lopez v. Fairwinds SB LLC · filed 2025-02-21(b)(2)

Finally, this judicial district is the appropriate venue since “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Southern District of Florida. 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 claims occurred.

Werner v. The City of New York · filed 2025-02-24(b)(2)

Venue of these and other claims arising at Marcy is proper, under Section 1391(b)(2), in the Northern District of New York, based on where the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

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

Saint Paul Commodities, Inc. v. Oleo-X, LLC · filed 2025-02-27(b)(2)

Thus, because the “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in Mississippi, venue is proper in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if the underlying project was elsewhere.

Harkins Contracting, Inc. v. Frankenmuth Insurance Company · filed 2025-02-27(a)(2)

While it is true that the Project was located in Delaware, Frankenmuth contracted with Ocean Tower—a Maryland corporation—to serve as surety for the Subcontract executed in Maryland between Ocean Tower and Harkins—another Maryland corporation. Thus, substantial events giving rise to Harkins’s claim 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.

Suleymanov v. Winston Premier Logistics, LLC · filed 2025-03-03(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). Here, Suleymanov claims that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred in Connecticut: namely, his hiring, training, and at least some of his workplace responsibilities.28 In defaulting, Winston Premier does not dispute that factual background, and on the basis of those facts, the Court concludes that venue is proper in this district.