28 U.S.C. § 1391

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for an action to confirm an arbitral award in the district where the arbitration took place.

I.T. International Telecom Marine SRL v. Gignet, Inc. · filed 2025-03-04(b)(2)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim” occurred in this District. Specifically, the arbitration took place in New York, New York.

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

Broadnax v. State Controller's Office (CA) · filed 2025-03-05(b)

The Plaintiff and all Defendants are located in the Eastern District of California. All the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred at Kern Valley State Prison, in the Eastern District of California. Accordingly, venue for this action properly lies in the Eastern 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.

International ProcessPlants and Equipment Corp. v. Harris · filed 2025-03-06(b)(2)

This case was brought in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the Project at the very center of this case—the Conshohocken demolition project—took place. This satisfies the “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim” requirement of § 1391(b)(2).

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

(PS) Soloman v. Scheper · filed 2025-03-06(b)(2)

It appears that all incidents giving rise to this case took place in Los Angeles County and/or Orange County, and that plaintiff still resides in Los Angeles County. The proper federal district court venue for Los Angeles County and Orange County is the United States Court for the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s case should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

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

Rogers v. Walmart, Inc. · filed 2025-03-06(b)(2)

Even if the Court assumed that NJ Transit and Walmart could be considered residents of this District for venue purposes, and that venue is therefore proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because a substantial part of the operative events giving rise to his claims against the named defendants 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 the claim occurred, even if venue may also be proper in another district.

Satchell v. Upstate of New York · filed 2025-03-06(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 Clinton Correctional Facility, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of New York.

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

Texas Auto Capital, LLC v. Patriot General Insurance Company · filed 2025-03-07(b)(2)

Because the Court accepts Patriot’s claims that the auto accident involved in this case occurred in Kemp, King County, Washington, and the acts or omissions that Patriot allegedly perpetrated occurred in the same county, venue would be proper in the Western District of Washington, Seattle Division. See id. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Krug v. Bloomsburg University · filed 2025-03-11(b)

Venue is proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all acts or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred with the Middle District.

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

Clary v. Pennsylvania State University · filed 2025-03-11(b)(2)

Because “a substantial part of the events” giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at Penn State’s main campus in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, venue lies in that district.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make a district a proper venue merely because the plaintiff received communications there about a dispute centered elsewhere.

(PS) Memmott v. Manning · filed 2025-03-11(b)(2)

Finally, the complaint’s allegations do not establish that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Although plaintiff asserts that he received communications regarding the subject dispute in this district, that is insufficient to establish venue in the Eastern District of California.

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

Miller v. Austin · filed 2025-03-12(b)

Venue is proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all acts or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred within 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 claims occurred.

Grant v. Camino · filed 2025-03-12(b)(2)

Venue therefore is proper in the Eastern District of New York, under Section 1391(b)(2), based on the location where the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

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) Taylor v. Merin · filed 2025-03-14(b)(2)

Because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim occurred in Los Angeles County and because the defendants allegedly are (or were) members of the Los Angeles Police Department, Plaintiff's action should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

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

Grant v. 115th Precinct · filed 2025-03-14(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that all defendants reside in the State of New York, and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Queens County, venue 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.

Velez v. Hochul · filed 2025-03-17(b)(2)

Even if the Court assumed that Paredez resides in this District and all defendants reside in the State of New York, and, therefore, venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at Clinton Correctional Facility, and possibly in Albany, New York, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of New York.

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

Moments v. Doe · filed 2025-03-19(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 at Ulster, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of New York.

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

Care From the Heart in Home Services, Inc. v. Crefasi Accounting Services, LLC · filed 2025-03-21(b)(2)

The Court finds that both venues submitted by the parties are proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the underlying events took place in both jurisdictions.

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

Satchell v. Employee's of Dept. of D.O.C.C. · filed 2025-03-21(b)(2)

Thus, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and not this court, 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, even if a related event occurred in another district.

Nunez, Jr. v. Harry · filed 2025-03-24(b)(2)

However, since two of the three denials on that claim took place in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the court will also address the claim as to the denial at SCI-Somerset. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (“A civil action may be brought in . . . a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.”).

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

Excellus Health Plan, Inc. v. Blackfly Investments, LLC · filed 2025-03-26(b)(2)

Based on these allegations, the Court concludes that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Western District of New York and 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.

Washington v. The People of The State of New York · filed 2025-03-27(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that at least one defendant resides in this District and that venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(1) both here and in the Eastern District of New York, because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Richmond 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 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Brelo v. Biden · filed 2025-03-31(b)(2)

Nor has he stated any claim for which “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [that] claim” occurred in the District of Utah. Id. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make venue proper where an employment contract was signed if it was largely performed outside the district.

Washington v. NETworks Presentations, LLC · filed 2025-03-31(b)(2)

Where an employment contract is formed and signed in the Southern District but largely performed outside of it, venue is not proper under § 1391(b)(2).

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

Grant v. Venango County Sheriffs Office · filed 2025-03-31(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Venango County, venue is proper, under Section 1391(b)(2), in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue based on a plaintiff’s residence and correspondence from a district when those facts are not a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

Tobien v. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. · filed 2025-04-02(b)(2)

Even accepting those allegations as true—as we must, for purposes of determining whether Tobien has made a prima facie showing that venue is proper—those facts do not qualify as a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to” this lawsuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial connection between the events giving rise to the claim and the judicial district where the action is filed.

Abalu v. Society of Human Resource Management · filed 2025-04-04(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s allegations do not support venue in the Southern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2) because Plaintiff does not allege that any events giving rise to the claim are substantially connected to this District.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; later corrective treatment in another district does not establish venue when the significant malpractice events occurred elsewhere.

Perry v. Salem Health · filed 2025-04-11(b)(2)

And while it is material to Plaintiff’s claims that she underwent corrective medical treatment when she arrived home in Washington, this does not change the fact that Plaintiff experienced the harms constituting the graveman of her claims while she was travelling outside of the state. Therefore, the Court concludes that venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).

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

Isserdasani, Krish v. Noem, Kristi · filed 2025-04-17(e)(1)(B)

Accordingly, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims before this court occurred here for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B), and defendants have not shown that venue is improper as to Isserdasani.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where a loan was accepted, funded, and payable.

Structured Financial, LLC v. Shonuff Digital Media, LLC · filed 2025-04-30(b)(2)

Furthermore, the transaction giving rise to this action “was accepted, funded, and was payable” in the Eastern District of North Carolina. ... Thus, venue is proper in this district.

Under § 1391(b)(2), viewing an allegedly defamatory social media post in a district does not by itself establish venue there.

HIRSCH v. BEHAR · filed 2025-05-06(b)(2)

But the fact that Plaintiff viewed Defendant’s Instagram post in New Jersey is insufficient to establish this District as a proper venue.

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

(PC) Baggett v. Atascadero State Hospital · filed 2025-05-07(b)

The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In this case, the claim arose in San Luis Obispo County, which is in the Central District of California.

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

Gibson v. Doe · filed 2025-05-07(b)(2)

It is clear, however, that venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2) because Elmhurst Hospital is located in Queens County, which falls within the Eastern District.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not permit venue in a district where none of the alleged wrongdoing occurred.

Lopez-Acevedo v. LNU · filed 2025-05-08(b)(2)

Accepting the allegations as true, none of the alleged wrongdoing occurred in New Mexico. The claims all relate to Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement in Arizona.

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

Anokhin v. Foss Energy Services, Inc. · filed 2025-05-14(b)(2)

Thus, based on the allegations in the complaint, the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, and not this court, is a proper venue for this action 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.

Gildea v. The People of New York State · filed 2025-05-14(b)(2)

In addition, because Gildea alleges that a substantial part, if not, all of the alleged events giving rise to his claims under Section 1983 have occurred in Tompkins County, within the Northern District of New York, see § 112(a), under Section 1391(b)(2), the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and not this court, is a proper venue for Gildea’s claims under Section 1983.

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

Wen v. Tether Operations Limited · filed 2025-05-14(b)(2)

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

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

Williams v. Van Pratt · filed 2025-05-15(b)

Venue for federal civil rights actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) under which such actions may be brought only in (1) the judicial district where any defendant resides (if all defendants reside in the same State), (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the action, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. Because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Williams’s claims took place in Cook County, the appropriate forum for the adjudication of those claims is the federal judicial district for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

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

Gamboa v. Singlton · filed 2025-05-20(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that at least one defendant resides in this District and all defendants reside in New York, and, therefore, that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at Collins Correctional Facility, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Western District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue merely because a property purchase agreement was entered into in the district when the disputed property and alleged misconduct were elsewhere.

(PS) O'Connor v. Charlie · filed 2025-05-21(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in more than one district when a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in each.

Ervin v. California Network Management Inc · filed 2025-05-27(b)(2)

Once again, the Court finds venue to be proper either in the Eastern District of Washington or in the Central 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.

(PS) Nguyen v. Napa Superior Court · filed 2025-05-27(b)(2)

The complaint’s allegations do not establish that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Venue does not properly lie in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Rivers v. Doe · filed 2025-05-27(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where a plaintiff received online communications and initiated disputed deposits.

Havalimane v. Up-Business.top · filed 2025-05-28(b)(2)

In the present case, all of the communications, interactions, and deposits took place online. Defendants’ locations during this time period are unknown. Havalimane, however, resided in Katy, Texas, when he was allegedly exploited by Defendants. As a result, a substantial part of the events giving rise to Havalimane’s claim arose in Katy, Texas, as that is where Havalimane engaged with Defendants and initiated the deposits that are the subject of the present litigation.

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

Rylander v. INTERCONTINENTAL TERMINALS COMPANY LLC · filed 2025-06-03(b)(2)

Thus, while it is also unclear that this court is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2), it is clear that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas is a proper venue for this action under that provision.

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

Joe Hand Promotions Incorporated v. La Casa De Las Flores Gourmet Kitchen LLC · filed 2025-06-04(b)(2)

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

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

Parra v. Social Security Administration Region 2 · filed 2025-06-04(e)(1)(B)

Thus, while there is a possibility that this court may be a proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims under the APA, pursuant to Section 1391(e)(1)(A) and/or (B), it is clear that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey is a proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims under the APA, pursuant to Section 1391(e)(1)(B).

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

Daniels v. The City of New York · filed 2025-06-05(b)(2)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which is a proper venue for Plaintiff’s remaining claims under Section 1391(b)(2), thus, appears to be a more convenient forum 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.

McCarter v. Two Farms, Inc. · filed 2025-06-06(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the proposed transferee venue is thus a proper one.

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

WOODWARD v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC · filed 2025-06-06(b)(2)

Mr. Woodward could have filed this case in the Middle District both because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there and because GM resides there.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue in a district where the acts giving rise to the claims occurred elsewhere and the alleged injuries within the state occurred in another district.

Rubink v. Richland County Sheriff's Department · filed 2025-06-11(b)(2)

Rubink posits that venue exists here under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) “because a substantial portion of the acts and resulting harm occurred in... Virginia.” (ECF No. 29, at 3.) But as the Court has already explained, the acts giving rise to Rubink’s claims occurred outside of Virginia. See supra. Moreover, any injuries Rubink allegedly suffered in Virginia occurred while he lived in Louisa, which falls within the Western District of Virginia. See W.D. Va. Loc. R. 2(a)(2). Thus, the Court cannot proceed with this case on both jurisdictional and venue grounds.

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

Williams v. Combs · filed 2025-06-11(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where significant events or omissions material to the claim occurred; a majority of the events need not have occurred there.

Nelson v. Duncan · filed 2025-06-13(b)(2)

The complaint asserts no facts permitting the Court to conclude that significant events or omissions material to the Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Eastern District of California such that venue would be proper in this Court.

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

Hardy v. LexisNexis · filed 2025-06-13(b)(2)

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

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

Dixon v. NYCHA - New York City Housing Authority · filed 2025-06-16(b)(2)

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

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

Vannatter v. Singh · filed 2025-06-10(b)(2)

Therefore, the District of Idaho is an appropriate venue. 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 occurred.

Chapman v. U.S. Depmiment of Housing and Urban Development · filed 2025-06-13(e)(1)(B)

The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Columbus, Ohio. Venue for this action is therefore proper under Section 1391(e)(1)(B) in the Southern District of Ohio.

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

Whyte v. Evans · filed 2025-06-24(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Kings County, venue is 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 most events occurred elsewhere.

My Fav Electronics, Inc. v. Currie · filed 2025-06-26(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this District because a substantial part of the events underlying this case took place 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.

Swinea v. Peters · filed 2025-07-02(b)(2)

As Magistrate Judge Evangelista concluded, venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because "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 claim occurred.

Wilson v. Facebook.com (Meta Platforms, Inc.) · filed 2025-07-02(b)(2)

Because a significant part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Steuben County and Chemung County, venue is 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 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Downey v. FCA US LLC · filed 2025-07-03(b)(2)

The Court concludes that the District of New Mexico is not a proper venue for this case because there are no allegations that any of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the District of New Mexico.

Venue is proper where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred; those events need not be a majority of all relevant events.

PivotHealth Holdings LLC v. Horton · filed 2025-07-07(b)(2)

Pivot has met ... its burden of proving that a substantial part of events occurred in the District of Arizona, ... and therefore the Court finds that venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial portion of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where the application of a statewide policy caused the alleged injury.

Robillard v. Knutson · filed 2025-07-09(b)(2)

Accordingly, a substantial portion of events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the Eastern District, and therefore venue is proper here.

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

(PS) Logan v. Mobile Gas Station · filed 2025-07-11(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) requires a substantial connection between the district and the events or omissions giving rise to the claim.

Cribier v. Compass, Inc. · filed 2025-07-14(b)(2)

With respect to § 1391(b)(2), the actions of which Cribier complains do not enjoy a “substantial” nexus with this district.

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

Chambers v. Combs · filed 2025-07-15(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 Brooklyn, 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.

Spencer v. Spencer · filed 2025-07-17(b)(2)

Although Plaintiff alleges that his claims arose in both New Jersey and Vermont, the Court understands the complaint as alleging that a substantial part of the events occurred at Plaintiff’s residence, which is in Vermont. The State of Vermont constitutes a single judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 126. Accordingly, venue lies in the District of Vermont, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial connection between the district and the events giving rise to the claims; incidental communications do not establish venue.

Kazazian v. CNA Financial Corporation · filed 2025-07-18(b)(2)

Thus, although some events and communications related to the claims may have occurred in this district, the breach occurred in Colorado, performance should have occurred in Colorado, and injury was sustained entirely in Colorado. Based upon this, Colorado is the only judicial district where a substantial part of the events 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.

Poppie v. STIHL Incorporated · filed 2025-07-21(b)(2)

Venue is proper in Central District of Illinois, the transferee court, because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” there.

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

Sirfuentes, III v. CITIBANK, N.A. · filed 2025-07-21(b)(2)

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he experienced the injuries allegedly caused by Defendant at his residence in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Grand Rapids is located in Kent County, which falls within the Western District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b). Venue is therefore proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Western District of Michigan.

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

Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeshi · filed 2025-07-24(b)(2)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred [and] a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated” in this District.

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

Jimenez v. Rise Boro · filed 2025-07-25(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 where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if relevant events also occurred elsewhere.

Person v. ACS Technologies Group, Inc. · filed 2025-07-29(b)(2)

Here, although Defendant is based in South Carolina, the events did not occur exclusively in South Carolina. Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s remote employment in Florida for years and expected that he would perform work for the company while based in Florida. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated while residing in Pasco County, Florida, and that Florida is where he subsequently suffered damages related to his termination. The Court is satisfied that the Middle District of Florida is at least one proper venue for this matter.

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

Sifuentes v. Citibank, N.A. · filed 2025-07-21(b)(2)

Plaintiff’s claims arose in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which is in the Western District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, venue lies in the Western District of Michigan, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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

Mayron v. Silverman · filed 2025-08-06(b)(2)

Here, the Complaint lacks any nonconclusory factual allegation that venue is proper in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make venue proper where a plaintiff experiences continuing effects of an injury when the events giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.

Leggett v. Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services · filed 2025-08-08(b)(2)

As a result, she has not established venue is proper here under § 1391(b)(2) solely because her name was republished on the Excluded Providers List after she moved to Arizona.

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

CM Vantage Specialty Insurance Group v. Guilford Specialty Group Inc · filed 2025-08-11(b)(2)

The Court finds that venue is appropriate in the District of Connecticut given that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that district.

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

Pina v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2025-08-11(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in California, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Central District of California.

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

Rose v. Department of Parole · filed 2025-08-07(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Brooklyn, venue is 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 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Merrell v. Ralph Lauren Corporation · filed 2025-08-12(b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... Applying these principles here, given the nature of Plaintiff’s claims, his undisputed residence in Riverside County, and the lack of any detailed allegations connecting him and his theory of liability to Contra Costa County, it is reasonable to conclude that Plaintiff likely suffered his alleged injury in Riverside County. ... Consequently, the Court finds that venue would be proper in the Central 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.

Hagins v. Griffin · filed 2025-08-13(b)(2)

Plaintiff has not pled or identified any “acts or omissions” occurring in the Western District of North Carolina. Therefore, venue is improper 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.

TULIN v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE NATIONAL CORPORATE · filed 2025-08-14(b)(2)

Based on these allegations, this Court finds that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within this judicial district. Defendants have not refuted that these events occurred in this district. As such, this Court finds that venue is proper in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where an employee performed a substantial part of the work underlying an unpaid-overtime claim, including authorized remote work.

Corman v. Relax Saunas · filed 2025-08-15(b)(2)

Taking these together, the evidence shows Corman worked remotely on a full-time basis, allegedly incurring unpaid overtime, in Toledo, Ohio, for nearly half of her total term of employment. This is sufficient to establish that a substantial part of the events giving rise to her claim occurred in the Northern District of Ohio.

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

(PS) Logan v. ACE Cash Express · filed 2025-08-15(b)(2)

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

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

U.S. Ling Institute, Inc. v. KPCA Northwestern Presbyterian Theological Seminary · filed 2025-08-18(b)(2)

Because a substantial part of the events related to U.S. Ling’s claims occurred in Utah, the court finds this District is a proper venue and declines to dismiss U.S. Ling’s claims under Rule 12(b)(3).

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

James v. Supreme Court of Kings County · filed 2025-08-18(b)(2)

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

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

Ozturk v. Hyde · filed 2025-08-18(e)(1)(B)

Therefore, a substantial part of the events giving rise to Ms. Ozturk’s SEVIS-related claims likely occurred in Massachusetts for the purposes of § 1391(e) part (B).

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

Blunt v. Pfluger · filed 2025-08-12(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 in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Collado v. Grivalda · filed 2025-08-12(b)(2)

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

Section 1391 permits venue for Bivens and APA claims in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Prinzo v. United States Department of Health And Human Services · filed 2025-08-13(b)(2), (e)(1)(B)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Western District of Kentucky, see Sections 1391(b)(2) and 1391(e)(1)(B), and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, 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.

Stembridge v. Greyhound Lines Inc. · filed 2025-08-20(b)(2)

It thus appears that the only proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims or, at least, the most appropriate venue for Plaintiff’s claims is the United States District Court for the District of Arizona 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.

Benton v. Williams · filed 2025-08-22(b)(2)

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

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 v. Choice Hotels International , Inc. · filed 2025-08-22(b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim”—Doe’s alleged trafficking—occurred there.

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

Larkin v. Cabraser · filed 2025-08-22(b)(2)

The Eastern District of Louisiana is also a proper venue for the claims. Venue generally is proper in a judicial district in which (1) any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Here, a number of the defendants reside in the Eastern District of Louisiana, and the settlement agreement at issue was negotiated in the Eastern District of Louisiana, even if some of the attorneys participated in the negotiations from outside the district.

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

Kulisz v. Raga · filed 2025-08-22(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Raga occurred in Queens County, venue is 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 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Fagan v. Nexo Capital, Inc. · filed 2025-08-25(b)(2)

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 . . . .” There is no dispute that this action could have been filed originally in the destination venue—the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division (Dkt. #5 at p. 20; Dkt. #16 at p. 14). Thus, the threshold inquiry is satisfied and the Court next considers the private and public interest factors.

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

Hernandez v. Fu Long Food Product Inc. · filed 2025-08-26(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district because the failure to pay wages alleged in the Complaint occurred during Plaintiff’s employment in Flushing, New York.

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

Ioszpe v. Unifin Inc · filed 2025-08-28(b)(2)

As pled, the Petition contains no factual allegations regarding where Plaintiff was when he received the calls, whether Unifin had knowledge of his location or state of residency, whether other Oklahoma residents received similar calls, or any other factual detail that connects Unifin or its conduct as directed to Oklahoma or establishes that a substantial part of the events took place in the Western District of Oklahoma.

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

Butler v. ACH Child and Family Services · filed 2025-08-22(b)

Because the actions that allegedly violated Title VII and § 1981 are alleged to have taken place in the Fort Worth Division, venue is proper in that division and therefore the case could have been filed there. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) supports venue where the acts giving rise to the claims occurred.

Kirk v. Our Community Our Children · filed 2025-08-22(b)

Because the actions that allegedly violated Title VII, § 1981, the ADA, and the FMLA are alleged to have taken place in the Fort Worth Division, venue is proper in that division and therefore the case could have been filed 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.

Dubose v. City Of New York · filed 2025-08-26(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue in a district when the alleged events giving rise to the claim occurred in another district.

De Ciel v. Porter · filed 2025-08-28(b)(2)

But Sacramento is not in the Northern District of California; instead, it is in the Eastern District of California. So, venue is not proper in the Northern District of California under Section 1391(b)(2).

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.

(PS) Watson v. U.S. Dept. of Justice · filed 2025-08-28(b)(2)

In this case, the claims arose in Pasadena, California, which is located in the Central District of California.

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

Smith v. James · filed 2025-08-28(b)(2)

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

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

Lawrence v. Warin · filed 2025-08-29(b)(2)

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

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.

Carter v. Huhn · filed 2025-09-02(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim to occur in the district; online activity supporting personal jurisdiction does not by itself establish venue.

High Expectations LLC v. KPCA Northwestern Presbyterian Theological Seminary · filed 2025-09-04(b)(2)

But although providing courses online to a significant number of students based in Massachusetts was sufficient for personal jurisdiction over KPCA, that finding does not mean that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” here. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Under a holistic view of High Expectations’ claims, the court finds that a substantial part of the alleged wrongful events did not take place here.

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

The Burning Glass Institute v. Burning Glass International, Inc. · filed 2025-09-04(b)(2)

We conclude that venue is proper under § 1391(b)(2) here because the Institute substantially negotiated, performed, and allegedly breached the Marks License from its principal place of business in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania.

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

Osowski v. Baxter · filed 2025-09-05(b)(2)

Thus, a substantial portion of the events giving rise to Osowski’s misrepresentation and fraud claims against the Baxters occurred in Wisconsin. For this reason, venue is proper in this district under § 1391(b)(2).

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

Fan v. California University - Silicon Valley · filed 2025-09-05(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege facts demonstrating that a substantial part of her claims occurred in this District, venue for her state law claims is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue where required biometric collection is a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim about delayed petition adjudication.

Nayi v. MAYORKAS · filed 2025-09-09(e)(1)(B)

The Court denies the motion on this ground and finds that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), which allows for a case to be brought where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” ... Thus, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims—i.e., the events necessary for USCIS to make determinations on Plaintiffs’ petitions—occurred within the district, and venue is proper.

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

McDaniel v. Chambers-Smith · filed 2025-09-10(b)(2)

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.” Because Plaintiff alleges that Thompson’s actions, decisions, and omissions contributed to events at CRC in Pickaway County (thus, within the Southern District of Ohio) venue is proper here.

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

Merrell v. Tapestry, Inc. · filed 2025-09-10(b)(2)

First, Merrell could have brought this action in the Central District of California. Under 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). Merrell’s claims arise from his attempts to use Tapestry’s website while he was residing in Riverside County.

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

Rowell v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company · filed 2025-09-10(b)(2)

However, because a substantial part of the events give rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Atlanta, the Northern District of Georgia also is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Stansberry v. Auburn Correctional Facility · filed 2025-09-10(b)(2)

The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, which is a proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1391(b)(2), therefore, appears to be a more convenient forum for this action.

Claims based on events in Des Moines against Des Moines defendants do not have proper venue in Wisconsin under § 1391(b)(1)–(2).

Watkins, Lateesha v. Fond du Lac District Attorney Office · filed 2025-09-05(b)(1)–(2)

Second, Wisconsin would not be the proper venue for claims based on events that occurred in Des Moines, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)–(2), and it is implausible that the court would have personal jurisdiction over the Des Moines defendants.

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

Ernest Godfrey Logan, Jr. v. Metro Transit Association · filed 2025-09-11(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 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Ernest Godfrey Logan, Jr. v. Panda Express · filed 2025-09-12(b)(2)

The complaint’s allegations do not establish that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Venue does not properly lie in this district.

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

Badov v. Ameriflight, LLC · filed 2025-09-19(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff failed to allege what unlawful employment practices occurred in the Eastern District of Texas and the only activity that occurred in the Eastern District of Texas was that Plaintiff resided here when he was terminated, the Court agrees with Defendant that the Eastern District of Texas does not satisfy the standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and thus, no events, let alone a “substantial part of the events,” occurred in the Eastern 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.

Ernest Godfrey Logan, Jr. v. 7 Eleven · filed 2025-09-19(b)(2)

The complaint’s allegations do not establish that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Venue does not properly lie in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Thomas v. Gonzalez · filed 2025-09-18(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to her claims took place in Queens County, outside this district, venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(2), based on where the events occurred.

Section 1391(b) makes the district where all alleged events occurred the proper venue for this suit.

POWELL v. DOOLY STATE PRISON · filed 2025-09-19(b)

As Powells 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.

Entering a contract in a district alone does not establish venue under § 1391(b)(2) when the conduct material to the claim occurred elsewhere.

Ungar · filed 2025-09-23(b)(2)

In the absence of these factors, entering a contract within the district is insufficient to give rise to venue under § 1391(b)(2) 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.

Hawkins v. Zenner · filed 2025-09-26(b)(2)

Because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to” Hawkin’s claims of fraud and misappropriation occurred in Arizona, venue in this District is proper.

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

Nelson v. SIS Software, LLC · filed 2025-09-26(b)(2)

Venue can be proper in multiple districts, including “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). ... Therefore, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Minnesota, making the District of Minnesota a proper venue.

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

Forstl · filed 2025-09-30(b)(2)

Applying these standards, this District is the proper venue for the Plaintiff’s claims concerning the Fee Agreement, but not for those that arise from the Commission Agreement.

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

RHODES v. MILLER-(RHODES) · filed 2025-10-02(b)(2)

And subsection (2) does not apply here because "a substantial portion of the events" giving rise to Mr. Rhodes's claim did not occur in Indiana.

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

Blandon · filed 2025-10-14(b)(2)

It alleges that the events giving rise to Blandon’s claims occurred at defendants’ warehouse in Springfield Gardens, Queens County, located in the Eastern District of New York. ... Accordingly, based on the allegations in the Complaint, venue lies in the Eastern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Hill v. CoreCivic · filed 2025-10-15(b)

Because Defendants allegedly responsible for the conduct at issue and a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims are located in counties within the jurisdiction of the Central District of California, Plaintiffs action should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

In re Clifford Smith · filed 2025-10-15(b)(2)

It is clear, however, that venue is not proper in this Court 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 re Clifford Smith · filed 2025-10-15(b)(2)

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

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

Evans · filed 2025-10-17(b)(2)

The Court dismisses this case for improper venue because there are no factual allegations showing that the acts of Defendants occurred in the District of New Mexico and Plaintiff has not shown that it is in the interest of justice to transfer this case to another district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the alleged misconduct or injury occurred.

Selby · filed 2025-10-17(b)(2)

Furthermore, even if Sovrn were correct that none of its acts occurred outside of Colorado, venue is still proper because at least some Plaintiffs were injured 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.

Rusk · filed 2025-10-22(b)(2)

Nor is venue proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(2), because Plaintiff does not allege that any events giving rise to his claims—let alone a substantial part of the events—occurred in the Middle District of Tennessee.

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

Card · filed 2025-10-22(b)(2)

First, venue is improper. Plaintiff alleges that he and Defendant are residents of Washington state, and the Complaint is devoid of any factual allegation that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred [in the district of Guam], or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated [in the district of Guam].” See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(1)–(2) does not permit venue in a district where the defendant does not reside and neither the subject property nor a substantial part of the events is located.

DEROSA-GRUND · filed 2025-10-22(b)(1)–(2)

Yet, venue is not proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) because Defendant is not domiciled in New Jersey, and venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because (i) the property that is subject to the action is not located in New Jersey, and (ii) a “substantial” part of events in this case—including execution of the loan and at least four-and-a- half years of servicing the loan—occurred in Texas, not New Jersey.

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

Baptiste v. County of Orange · filed 2025-10-24(b)(2)

Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts establishing that the Eastern District of California is where a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise” to her claim occurred, or that this is where a “substantial part of the property” at issue is situated.

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

Islam · filed 2025-10-28(b)(2)

Yet, because Plaintiff alleges that a significant portion of the alleged events took place at Luxury Van’s location in Long Island City, Queens County, New York, which lies within the Eastern District of New York, see § 112(c), and not within this judicial district, it seems clear that, 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 Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1981, the ADEA, and the FLSA.

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

Hickman · filed 2025-10-28(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 his claims occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, and as Kings County lies within the Eastern District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 112(c), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is clearly also a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including work on the intellectual property in dispute.

Talkington · filed 2025-10-29(b)(2)

Section 1391(b)(2) speaks for itself as to where the focus must be placed, and here, the Peoria Division of this district is a proper venue.

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

Ibhar Al Mheid v. Minchew · filed 2025-10-30(b)

To start, the action could have been brought in the Middle District of Georgia because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in the case took place in Athens- Clarke County, which is in the Middle District of Georgia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for a petition to vacate an arbitration award where a substantial part of the events underlying the arbitrated dispute occurred.

McCance · filed 2025-10-30(b)(2)

Since the corporate petitioners were based in Massachusetts during the parties’ business relationship, and Kreger and Ryan worked for those Massachusetts-based corporations during that relationship, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the District of Massachusetts. Venue is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Davis · filed 2025-11-03(b)(2)

The applicable venue provision for Petitioner’s claims under Bivens and under state law is found at 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Petitioner seems to indicate, however, that the alleged events that are the bases of his claims under Bivens and under state law took place, in large part, if not totally, at MCFP Springfield, which, as discussed above, is located in the Western District of Missouri, see supra at 3-4, and not within this judicial district. ... Thus, it appears that the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, and not this court, is the most appropriate venue for these claims.

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

Schilling v. Kelley · filed 2025-11-04(b)(2)

First, venue would have been proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (venue is proper where a substantial part of events giving rise to a lawsuit occurred).

Under § 1391(e)(1)(B), plans to live and work in a district do not establish venue for a visa-delay claim when the processing delay occurs elsewhere.

Alghooneh · filed 2025-11-04(e)(1)(B)

Instead, the “events or omissions giving rise to the claim,” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B), are the delays in processing Plaintiffs’ visa applications—which are occurring outside of this District.

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

Strickland-Petri · filed 2025-10-27(b)

All of the remaining Defendants are either alleged to be Colorado citizens or have no connection with the District of Nebraska, and Plaintiff’s residence in Nebraska is not controlling on the question of venue. Because Plaintiff’s claims arise out of events in Colorado, the Court finds venue is not proper in this district but rather in the District of Colorado.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not establish venue where a plaintiff later suffers consequences if the alleged wrongful acts occurred elsewhere.

Franklin · filed 2025-11-06(b)(2)

The fact that plaintiff suffered from negative consequences after returning to Michigan does not transform defendants’ alleged wrongful acts into “events or omissions” which occurred in Michigan for purposes of § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) requires a proper connection between the chosen district and the defendants or the events giving rise to the claim.

Northern v. United States Health and Human Services · filed 2025-11-06(b)

Finally, the Court notes that venue is improper. ... Northern’s suit falls squarely into this category, as all the alleged events occurred in Indiana or Illinois.

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim to occur in the district; one material decision there may be insufficient.

Washington v. Networks Presentations · filed 2025-11-06(b)(2)

Even if the hair decision was made in this District and was material to the rest of Plaintiff’s claims, the hair decision does not form a substantial part of those the relevant acts. Accordingly, venue is improper 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 re Sarepta Therapeutics Securities Litigation · filed 2025-11-06(b)(2)

Because Lead Plaintiffs have established that “a substantial part of the events” transpired in the District of Massachusetts, venue in that district is proper.