28 U.S.C. § 1391

Section 1391 permits venue where the defendant corporation has its principal place of business and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

MDCM Holdings, Inc. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. · filed 2002-06-25(a), (c)

Venue is proper in this district because Credit Suisse maintains its principal place of business in the Southern District of New York, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the plaintiffs’ claims occurred here.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the district where the defendant maintains its headquarters.

Speed v. Omega Protein, Inc. · filed 2003-02-21(b)

Venue is proper in this District because Defendant maintains its headquarters in Houston. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Hence, Defendant’s Motion to dismiss for improper venue is respectfully DENIED.

Section 1391(b) permits venue to be proper in more than one district.

Tweedy v. Cornyn · filed 2003-04-22(b)

Because venue would have been proper in either district, and because the decision to transfer was within the discretion of the district court, any such appeal would be frivolous.

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue based on defendants’ residences when they do not all reside in the same state, or based on events that did not occur in the filing district.

Root v. United States · filed 2003-06-13(b)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without prejudice Root’s claims against the individual federal defendants at FTC Oklahoma City, FCI Sheridan and FCI Taft for improper venue, because these defendants do not all reside in the same state and the events giving rise to the claims against these defendants did not occur in the Central District of California, where Root filed this action.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district when all defendants reside elsewhere, all events giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere, and the action could have been brought in another district.

Crenshaw v. Antokol · filed 2003-10-20(b)

Under section 1391(b), venue does not lie in the District, as all of the defendants reside in Indiana, all of the events giving rise to the plaintiffs claim took place in Indiana, and the plaintiff could have brought the action in Indiana.

Section 1391 permits venue where the property involved is located and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred.

Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois v. CDL Hotels USA, Inc. · filed 2004-06-22

Diversity jurisdiction is present pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and venue in this court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the property involved is located in this district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred in this district.

Section 1391(b) can make one district the only proper venue for an action.

Harrington v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2004-06-30(b)

Third, any litigation of these claims will take place in this forum, as venue is not appropriate in any other.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on the defendant’s residence, a substantial part of the events or omissions, or the location of property at issue.

Moten v. Garcia · filed 2004-10-22(b)

This contention fails because the sole named defendant did not reside in the district, only an insubstantial part of the events and omissions about which Moten complained to the district court in his papers filed on April 14, 2003 occurred within the district, and the property that Moten alleged was ... confiscated or destroyed at Calipatria State Prison was not situated in the district.

Section 1391(b) permits venue for a non-diversity action where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if no other district is available, where a defendant may be found.

Coando v. Payne · filed 2005-03-29(b)

We agree with the district court that the District of Wyoming fails to meet any of these three potential bases for venue. First, it is apparent from the record that Payne does not reside in Wyoming. To the contrary, Coando’s complaint alleges that Payne is a Utah resident. Second, a review of Coando’s complaint clearly establishes that all of the alleged events giving rise to his claims occurred in Utah. Third, there is no indication in the record that Payne “may be found” in the District of Wyoming, and the record clearly establishes that venue for Coando’s complaint is proper in Utah. Thus, venue was improper in the District of Wyoming.

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

Ortiz v. Orange County Transportation Authority · filed 2005-04-13(b)(1), (b)(2)

Venue lies in the judicial district where the defendant resides, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), or “a substantial part of the events ... giving rise to the claim occurred,” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The district court properly dismissed Ortiz’s action for lack of venue because no defendant resides in, nor did any of the alleged events take place in, the Southern District of California.

Section 1391(b)(1)-(2) does not permit venue in a district where the defendant does not reside and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

JMYK P.C. v. Washington State Bar Ass'n · filed 2005-04-13(b)(1)-(2)

The district court correctly dismissed Keefe’s civil rights action for improper venue because it is undisputed that the Washington State Bar Association does not reside in, nor did a substantial part of the events forming the basis of Keefe’s claims take place in the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(l)-(2); King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam).

Section 1391(b)(3) permits venue in a district where a defendant can be found if the action cannot otherwise be brought in another district.

Flag Co. v. Maynard · filed 2005-07-08(b)(3)

Rothstein, however, can be “found” in Oregon under § 1391(b)(3). Since he is the only defendant who can be “found” in the United States, venue is proper only in Oregon.

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

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District · filed 2005-12-20(b)

Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because one or more Defendants reside in this District, all Defendants reside in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the events or omissions giving rise to the claims at issue occurred in this District.

Section 1391 permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if another district is more convenient.

Daou v. Early Advantage, LLC · filed 2006-01-06

Reviewing all of the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving Plaintiff, it appears that Plaintiff has made a showing sufficient for a finding that venue is proper in the Northern District of New York — although this District is not the most appropriate venue for this matter. Again, Plaintiff resides in the Northern District of New York, and resided in the Northern District of New York toward the end of his employment with Defendant, working out of his New York home’s office at certain times, while EALLC sold goods to New York buyers — and at the time Plaintiff was terminated and the alleged non-payment of bonus and wages occurred.

Section 1391(e) does not permit venue in a district where neither the plaintiff nor any defendant resides and none of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Whayne v. United States · filed 2006-02-17(e)

The district court correctly dismissed Whayne’s action for improper venue because neither Whayne nor any defendant resided in the Northern District of California, and no events or omissions giving rise to Whayne’s claims occurred in the Northern District.

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

Johnson v. Lumenos, Inc. · filed 2007-01-11(b)

Section 1391(b) provides, inter alia, that venue is proper in “a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,” or “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” ... The parties agree that the defendant company resides in Alexandria, Virginia — a city squarely within the transferee district — and that all of the relevant events occurred there. ... Therefore, the defendant has established that the plaintiff could have originally brought this action in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Section 1391(b) governs where civil claims may be brought; claims brought in the wrong district may be refiled in a proper one.

Pogue v. California · filed 2007-02-28(b)

To the extent Pogue asserted constitutional and other claims that were not based on enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, the district court properly denied these claims without prejudice to refiling in the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) requires the plaintiff to establish that venue is proper.

Beard v. Homecomings Financial Network · filed 2007-04-26(b)

Further, the district court correctly determined that appellant failed to establish that venue was proper. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1406(a); Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 789 & n. 17 (D.C.Cir.1983).

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper where no defendant resides in the district and no substantial part of the events or property at issue is located there.

Perry v. Discover Bank · filed 2007-10-15(b)

None of the defendants resides in this district — indeed, it is questionable whether the Court would have personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants, all of whom are located in Delaware, Florida, and North Carolina. Moreover, plaintiffs identify no event or omission that occurred here, and the property that appears to be the subject of litigation is located in Florida. As a result, venue is not proper here, and dismissal is appropriate for this reason as well.

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

McKinney v. Rianda · filed 2007-12-28(b)

The district court in the Eastern District of California did not abuse its discretion in transferring the action to the Central District of California after determining that most of the defendants resided in and a substantial part of the events giving rise to McKinney’s claims occurred in the Central District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper where no defendant resides, no substantial part of the events occurred or relevant property is located, and another district can hear the action.

Black v. City of Newark · filed 2008-03-10(b)

Mr. Black does not establish venue in this District through any of the three statutory prongs. First, Newark is not a resident of the District of Columbia; it is a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey. Second, the events “giving rise to the claim” did not occur here, and the property at issue is located in New Jersey. Third, this action could have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which has jurisdiction over the City of Newark.

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

Miller v. Insulation Contractors, Inc. · filed 2009-04-21(b)

Because all defendants reside in Maryland and a substantial adverse employment action complained of occurred in Maryland, this action could have been brought, then, in the transferee district.

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in a district where the defendant is not shown to reside or be found and the events giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.

Birdwell v. Livingston · filed 2009-04-29(b)

There is no evidence that U.S. Extraditions is a resident of, or may be found in, the Eastern District of Texas. See § 1391(b)(1) & (3). Furthermore, the events or omissions giving rise to Birdwell’s claims against U.S. Extraditions exclusively occurred outside the Eastern District. See § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) supports venue in the district where the events occurred and the defendant officials reside.

Walls v. Fischer · filed 2009-05-11(b)

In addition, venue over the claims asserted in the proposed supplemental complaint lies in the Northern District of New York, where Clinton is located, and where the defendants named in the proposed supplemental complaint “reside” for purposes of venue.

Section 1391 permits venue where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events underlying the claim occurred.

Peter B. v. Central Intelligence Agency · filed 2009-06-01

This case could have been brought in the Eastern District of Virginia because relevant conduct underlying Peter B.’s claims occurred there and because the CIA resides in the Eastern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

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

Collins v. Stalder · filed 2009-06-26(b)

Venue in this case is proper in the Middle District of Louisiana, in which Angola is located. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391 governs whether the chosen forum is a proper venue before the court considers a transfer for convenience.

Calabrese v. TEOCO CORP. · filed 2009-07-21

Where, as here, the forum chosen is proper under Section 1391, Section 1404(a) allows for transfer for the convenience of the witnesses or parties and in the interests of justice.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendant does not reside and none of the events giving rise to the claim occurred when another district is available.

Verzani v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION · filed 2009-08-06(b)

However, I forgot to mention in the opinion that the addition of Robert Verzani as a party plaintiff also (a) destroyed diversity jurisdiction, which was the only basis for this court’s having jurisdiction in the first place; and (b) violated the venue provisions found in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that the defendant does not reside in this district, no portion of the activity giving rise to Robert Verzani’s claim occurred in this district, and the Western District of Washington is a district in which Robert Verzani could have brought his claims.

Section 1391 can make venue proper in more than one district for a diversity action.

Metz v. US Life Ins. Co. in City of New York · filed 2009-12-11(a)

In the instant action, venue is proper in both the transferor and transferee districts, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (“ § 1391”).

Section 1391(b)(2) can provide a basis for proper venue when a defendant seeks dismissal for improper venue.

Serefex Corp. v. Hickman Holdings, Lp · filed 2010-02-23(b)(2)

The Court finds venue is proper under either 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) or 15 U.S.C. § 78aa. Therefore, this aspect of the motion to dismiss will be denied.

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

Santi v. National Business Records Management, LLC · filed 2010-07-07(a)

Venue would be proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania, as the Defendant transacts business there, Defendant’s headquarters are located there, and at least part of the events giving rise to this cause of action occurred there.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events or property at issue is located, or, if no other district is available, where a defendant may be found.

Barbieri v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC · filed 2010-07-21(b)

Thus, venue is not proper in this District pursuant to either § 1391(b)(1) or § 1391(b)(2). Nor is venue proper in this District under § 1391(b)(3).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendants do not all reside, no substantial part of the events occurred, and another district is available.

Sandy v. Connelly · filed 2010-08-30(b)

Venue is not proper in this district under any of the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b): defendants do not all reside in the District of Columbia, no substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claim took place here, and this is not a case in which no other district is available.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper when the defendants do not all reside in the forum, no substantial part of the events occurred there, and another district is available.

Akers v. Watts · filed 2010-09-24(b)

Venue is not proper in this district under any of the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b): defendants do not all reside in the District of Columbia, no substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiffs claim took place here, and this is not a case in which no other district is available.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendants do not reside, the events giving rise to the claim did not occur, and the action could have been brought elsewhere.

Atwal v. Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC · filed 2011-05-23(b)

Here, Atwal has not established that all of the defendants reside in the District of Columbia or that they are subject to personal jurisdiction here, or that the events that gave rise to the claim occurred here. Since Atwal does not dispute that the events at issue happened entirely in California, Atwal has not shown that there is no other district in which the action could have been brought. Therefore, venue is not proper in the District of Columbia.

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

Pinpoint IT Services, L.L.C. v. Atlas IT Export Corp. · filed 2011-07-13(a)

Section 1391 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that venue is proper for a diversity of citizenship action in a “judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” or in a “judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.” ... Since there is no indication that Plaintiff improperly laid venue in this Court, the Court will analyze Defendant’s transfer request under Section 1404(a).

Section 1391(b) permits a federal-law action in a district where the defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if neither is available, where a defendant may be found.

Nalls v. Coleman Low Federal Institution · filed 2011-09-02(b)

As a general matter, cases arising under federal law may be brought only in a district where: ... (1) any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim took place, or (3) the defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Nalls has alleged that the relevant events occurred at Coleman and it appears that the remaining defendants are located there. Nalls has failed to show a connection between any defendant and the Southern District of Florida. As such, the Southern District’s sua sponte review and transfer of venue was statutorily appropriate.

Section 1391(b) sets the proper venue for a civil action not based on diversity jurisdiction by reference to the defendant’s location or the events giving rise to the claim.

Brown v. United States · filed 2011-09-26(b)

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a 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 a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In this case, the petitioner is challenging a conviction from Washington D.C. Superior Court, which is in the District of Columbia. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

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

Ruiz v. Robinson · filed 2012-08-31(b)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because each Plaintiff lives in the Southern District of Florida and applied to public post-secondary educational institutions in the Southern District of Florida.

Section 1391(b) places venue for a complaint against SCI Waymart staff in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

McCain v. Wetzel · filed 2012-11-13(b)

Because the proper venue for a complaint against staff at SCI Waymart is the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the District Court properly dismissed this claim without prejudice to McCain‟s re-filing it in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in California for these claims against Nevada defendants arising substantially from events in Nevada.

Williams Ex Rel. Estate of Williams v. Clark County Public Administrator · filed 2012-11-20(b)

The California district court properly transferred Williams’s action to Nevada because California was an improper venue for claims against defendants in Nevada that arose substantially out of events in Nevada. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (listing grounds for venue); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (authorizing transfer of case to district where it could have been filed instead of dismissing it for improper venue).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue where plaintiffs show neither a qualifying basis tied to the defendants or the events nor that no other district is available.

Clay v. Blue Hackle North America, LLC · filed 2012-11-30(b)

Plaintiffs cannot establish venue in the District under the general venue provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because they have not shown that all of the defendants reside in the District or are subject to personal jurisdiction here, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (c), or that a significant part of the events that gave rise to plaintiffs' claims occurred in the District.

Section 1391(b) determines the proper federal district for a claim, and a claim filed in the wrong district should be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the proper district.

Turner v. Attorney General of Pennsylvan · filed 2012-12-03(b)

The proper venue for Turner‟s claims against Inuzzy and staff at SCI Mahanoy is the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Although the District Court should have dismissed this claim without prejudice to Turner‟s re-filing it in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, we conclude that such error is harmless because, as discussed below, Turner‟s claim has no merit.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper where no defendant resides in the district and the claims arose elsewhere.

Johnson v. Attorney General of the United States · filed 2012-12-27(b)

Venue lies in the judicial district where either all defendants reside or where the claim arose. Al-Muhaymin v. Jones, 895 F.2d 1147, 1148 (6th Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... None of the defendants reside in the Southern District of Ohio. The claims asserted in the complaint relate to events that are alleged to have occurred in Washington, D.C., and not the Southern District of Ohio. Therefore, this Court is not the proper venue for plaintiffs' claims.

Section 1391(b) can establish that venue is proper in a proposed transferee district.

Smart Audio Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc. · filed 2012-11-16(b)

Additionally, a court in the Northern District of California could have exercised subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), and venue would have been appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant is located and none of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Fiorani v. Chrysler Group · filed 2013-01-17(b)

Fiorani’s complaint makes it abundantly clear that there is no conceivable basis for venue in the Middle District of Pennsylvania because none of the defendants is alleged to reside there and because his allegations are not related in any way to that District.

Section 1391(a) permits venue where the defendant resides and a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying the claims occurred.

CPS MedManagement LLC v. Bergen Regional Medical Center, L.P. · filed 2013-04-05(a)

Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because the Hospital is a resident of New Jersey and a substantial part of the events and omissions underlying MMM’s claims occurred in New Jersey.

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where defendants conduct business and the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.

Ogawa v. US Explore and Study, Inc. · filed 2013-05-20

Venue is proper in this judicial district, the District of Guam, because Defendants conduct business here, and because all of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred or the property is located, or, if no other district qualifies, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Ananiev v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2013-09-12(b)

In short, the lack of proper venue for this case in the District of Columbia is plain. The complaint contains no allegations that any of the defendants reside in the District of Columbia, that the property at issue is located in the District of Columbia, that the allegedly unlawful servicing of the loan took place in the District of Columbia, or that the allegedly unlawful foreclosure or detainer action on the plaintiff’s property had any connection to this jurisdiction.

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

Synthes, Inc. v. Knapp · filed 2013-10-11(b)

This action could have been brought in the Eastern District of California. Knapp resides there, Depuy has conducted and continues to do business in California, and the conduct central to the case occurred and continues to occur in California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) (in diversity case, venue proper where defendant resides); id. § 1391(b)(2) (venue proper in district where substantial part of events occurred).

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

Potts v. Moreci · filed 2013-11-07(b)

Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because at least one defendant resides in this District and all of the events giving rise to Potts’ claims occurred in this District.

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

Kallman v. Aronchick · filed 2013-11-08(b)

Here, because we have dismissed Dr. Aronchiek from this action, this District is no longer the proper venue.

Section 1391(b) requires a civil action to satisfy one of three grounds for venue; a district lacking defendant residence, relevant events, and the property at issue is improper when another district is available.

McCain v. Bank of America, Na · filed 2014-01-30(b)

This action fails to satisfy any of the three categories for proper venue in this district under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits a civil action in a district based on defendants’ residence, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, or, if no other district qualifies, personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Martin v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · filed 2014-02-24(b)

Similarly, while the general venue statute that is applicable to Martin’s breach of contract, FCRA, and Section 1983 claims is broader than the standard applicable to his Title VII claim, Martin has nonetheless still failed to allege facts showing that venue for these claims is appropriate in this district under any of the three possibilities outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391 permits venue where a corporate defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events or property at issue is located; a corporation resides where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Guideone Mutual Insurance Company v. National Presbyterian Church, Inc. · filed 2014-02-11(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)

Thus, suit would have been equally proper in federal district court in the District of Columbia. See ... 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2) (corporation suable in judicial district where it resides; venue proper in judicial district in which substantial part of events or omissions giving rise to claim occurred or in which substantial part of property subject of action is situated); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) (corporation deemed to reside in any district in which it is subject to court’s personal jurisdiction).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events occurred when another district provides a proper venue.

Avila v. Citimortgage, Inc. · filed 2014-05-29(b)

Because the plaintiffs’ complaint does not satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), and because the consent decree does not provide a basis for venue in this district, the Court finds that the District of Columbia is an improper venue for the plaintiffs’ complaint.

Section 1391(b) permits a case to be filed where the defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Davis v. Hollins Law · filed 2014-06-12(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a case may be properly filed either in a judicial district in which defendant resides or a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. It was reasonable to file the action in the Eastern District based on the convenience to the plaintiff for deposition and trial.

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the claims occurred and the defendant has sufficient connection to the district.

Radiance Foundation, Inc. v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People · filed 2014-06-10(b), (c)

Venue is proper under § 1391 in any judicial district in which the defendant is properly subject to personal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and-(c). Venue is proper pursuant to § 1391 because a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the claims occurred in this District, and Defendant has sufficient connection with the Eastern District of Virginia.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities v. Duncan · filed 2014-10-02(b)(1)–(2)

Venue is proper in this district because the Department of Education is located in Washington, D.C., and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to APSCU’s claims occurred in the District of Columbia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)–(2).

Section 1391(c) provides rules for determining whether a venue is proper.

Schmidt v. Mars Inc · filed 2014-10-07(c)

Although Schmidt now argues to the contrary, Trenton was a proper venue for this case.

Section 1391(a) does not make venue proper where the defendant does not reside in the district, the events giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere, and the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction there.

Stevens v. Board of Education of Kent County · filed 2014-10-08(a)

Defendant does not "reside" in the District of Columbia, and the events giving rise plaintiffs claims seem to have occurred entirely in Maryland.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district with no connection to the defendants or the events underlying the claims.

Lotus v. United States of America · filed 2014-11-07(b)

With respect to the claims that Plaintiff asserts against other Defendants, the Court can discern no connection to the District of Columbia, in that all of these Defendants are located in Ohio and all of the underlying events took place in Ohio. Venue in this district is therefore improper for litigating any claims against these Defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside or where the acts or omissions at issue occurred.

Kirola v. City of San Francisco · filed 2014-11-26(b)(1), (2)

Venue is proper in the Northern District of California, as all Defendants reside and the acts or omissions complained of occurred in this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2).

Section 1391(b) determines whether venue is proper; a forum selection clause does not change that inquiry.

Devil's Advocate, LLC v. Grynberg Petroleum Company · filed 2014-12-19(b)

A review of the record reveals that, under § 1391(b), venue in this case is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia.

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

Merchants Automotive Grp v. Advantage Opco, LLC · filed 2015-02-19(b)

In addition, based on the parties’ allegations, it appears that Advantage is a Florida limited liability company and that its sole member is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. As such, Advantage does not appear to reside in Mississippi. There are no allegations that any of the incidents that gave rise to Merchants’s claim occurred in Mississippi. Therefore, it appears that venue would not be proper in Mississippi.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendants do not reside and the events did not occur.

Higgins v. Anthony · filed 2015-02-20(b)

The court also correctly determined that venue was improper, because the defendants do not reside, and the events did not occur, m this district.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district with no relevant property or alleged events when venue is available in another district.

Willis v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC · filed 2015-03-05(b)

The question whether venue is proper “is generally governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391.” ... Venue in this case is accordingly improper in the District of Columbia.

Section 1391(b) can provide venue for an ERISA benefits action alongside ERISA’s venue provision.

Karul v. S.C. Johnson & Son Long Term Disability Plan · filed 2015-03-10(b)

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where neither the defendant resides nor the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Taylor v. Tulsa Welding School · filed 2015-03-17(b)

But Mr. Taylor’s claim against Ms. Bielefielt arose from an allegedly fraudulent marriage performed in Illinois, and not from conduct in Oklahoma. And even if Ms. Bielefielt currently lives in Oklahoma City or El Reno, both cities are in the Western District of Oklahoma, making venue in the Northern District of Oklahoma improper.

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

Lagasan v. Al-Ghasel · filed 2015-03-17(b)(1), (b)(2)

The Court conducted a de novo review of the evidence in this case and adopts and incorporates the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. ... 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 claims occurred in this district, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because defendants are residents of the state in which this District is located.

Section 1391 permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, and a forum-selection clause alone does not make that venue improper.

T & M Solar & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Lennox International Inc. · filed 2015-03-20(b)(2), (c)

Here, the sole basis on which Defendant seeks to transfer venue is that the forum selection clause so requires. In other words, Defendant never contends that venue is improper in this District pursuant to Section 1391, and indeed, venue appears to he here as “a substantial part of the events ... giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Northern District of California and Defendant did business in this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), (c). Thus, dismissal or transfer for improper venue is not required under Rule 12(b)(3) or Section 1406(a).

Section 1391(b) determines whether a district is a proper venue for a civil action.

McCain v. Bank of America N.A. · filed 2015-05-18(b)

The district court correctly determined venue for appellant’s claims does not lie in the District of Columbia.

Section 1391 permits venue where the defendant is located or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Mohammed v. Central Driving Mini Storage, Inc. · filed 2015-06-05(b)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as Defendant is located in this district and substantially all the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this district.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and no events giving rise to the suit occurred when venue is proper in another district.

Walsh v. Bank of America NA · filed 2015-06-29(b)

The events surrounding their claims did not occur in the District of Columbia, nor have the Walshes alleged that any of the defendants are residents of the District of Columbia. And because venue would be proper in the Eastern District of Virginia, the remaining claims cannot be brought under the third prong of Section 1391(b) either. Accordingly, the Walshes cannot bring their remaining claims in this Court.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper where defendants do not reside, none of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred, and another district is the proper venue.

Canen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2015-07-29(b)

The federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, provides three bases for grounding venue in a judicial district. See id. § 1391(b). None apply here. Defendants do not reside here; none of the events or omissions that give rise to the Canens’ claims occurred here; and venue is better laid in the Northern District of Indiana, where the events at issue occurred.

Section 1391(b) determines whether a district is a proper venue for a civil action.

Dermendziev v. State of Washington · filed 2015-07-30(b)

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Dermendziev’s claims relating to his conditions of confinement at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center because venue was not proper in the Western District of Washington.

Section 1391(b) permits venue for Bivens and section 2520 claims where the defendants are located or the alleged misconduct occurred.

Gordon v. Courter · filed 2015-07-31(b)

Venue would be improper with respect to the Bivens, section 2520, and FTCA claims. Bivens actions and claims pursuant to section 2520 must be litigated in the judicial district where the defendants are located or where the misconduct occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred; residence-based venue requires all defendants to reside in the same state.

Ortiz-Contreras v. Holder · filed 2015-09-04(b)

Given that the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where USP Lewisburg and USP Allenwood are located, and the Western District of Louisiana, where USP Pollock is located, venue is proper in either of those districts. And venue is improper in the District of Columbia because not all of the Defendants reside here and because there are other districts where venue is proper.

Section 1391 permits venue where the alleged violations occurred and all parties are located.

Damiano v. Scranton School District · filed 2015-09-30

Venue is appropriate in this court since the alleged constitutional violations occurred in this district and all parties are located here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where the parties reside and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the action occurred.

Pinterest, Inc. v. Pintrips, Inc. · filed 2015-10-21(b)

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the parties reside in this judicial district and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this action occurred here.

Venue under § 1391(b) is improper where the defendant does not reside in the district, the claim’s conduct did not occur there, and the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction there.

Hoeller v. Village of Barrington Manager · filed 2015-10-23(b)

That ruling is correct: the village does not “reside” in Wisconsin, the conduct giving rise to Hoeller’s claim did not occur in Wisconsin, and the village is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Wisconsin. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendant does not reside, the events giving rise to the suit did not occur, and another district is available.

Fen Wang v. Tavernier · filed 2015-11-03(b)

The district court correctly ruled that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York because (1) Tavernier was at all relevant times a citizen and resident of Indiana; (2) the events that gave rise to this suit all occurred in Indiana; and (3) Wang did not argue that no other jurisdiction existed in which this action could be brought. See id. at 355–57; 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391 does not make the plaintiff’s home district a proper venue when the events giving rise to the claims occurred elsewhere and the relevant connections are outside that district.

Martin v. McDonald's Corporation · filed 2016-04-20

By separate motions, McDonald’s and Core Security Solutions argue that Massachusetts is not the proper venue for these actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The Court agrees. The events giving rise to Martin’s claims occurred exclusively in Washington, D.C.

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

Bobola v. Fishing Vessel Expectation · filed 2016-04-04(b)

Moreover, Bobola himself has conceded that he ... filed suit in the wrong district, and now requests that the case be transferred to Massachusetts. Given these facts, I agree with Bobola, and find that a transfer serves the interests of justice here.

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where the defendants are located and the claims arose.

Select Auto Imports Inc. v. Yates Select Auto Sales, LLC · filed 2016-07-07

Each Defendant is located in this district, and the claims arose in this district. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)-(d).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendant does not reside and none of the alleged events occurred.

Young v. Renne · filed 2016-10-19(b)

The district court also correctly held that venue was not proper in the District of Kansas under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), and it declined to transfer the case.

Section 1391(b) requires facts establishing a statutory basis for venue in the chosen district.

Nigerians in Diaspora Organization Americas v. Ogbonnia · filed 2016-08-01(b)

Therefore, Plaintiff has not asserted any facts in support of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in the District of Columbia and, accordingly, venue is not appropriate under subsection (b) of 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

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

Lindora, LLC v. Isagenix International, LLC · filed 2016-08-01(b)(1), (b)(2)

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2) because both Isagenix and Novokolsky reside in this district, and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Lindora’s claim occurred in this district.

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

Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hedlund · filed 2016-11-03(b)(1), (b)(2)

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and 1391(b)(2) because Defendants reside in this district and because the events giving rise to the need for declaratory relief also occurred here.

Venue is improper under § 1391(b)(1) and (2) when no defendant resides in the district and no events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred there.

Silva v. Gonzales · filed 2016-08-04(b)(1), (b)(2)

The district court properly dismissed the action for improper venue because no defendant is alleged to reside in the Southern District of California, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), and no “part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred” there, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or, if no other district qualifies, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

679637 Ontario Ltd. v. Alpine Sign & Printer Supply, Inc. · filed 2016-11-17(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in any federal district in which the defendant resides, where “a substantial part of the events... giving rise to the claim occurred,” or, as a last resort, where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. ... Venue is proper in this district, and therefore there is no basis under § 1406(a) or Rule 12(b)(3) to dismiss the case.

Section 1391 permits venue where the defendant is located and the alleged events took place.

Ham v. Ayers · filed 2017-01-10

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the AOC is located in the District of Columbia, Mr. Ham was employed in the District of Columbia, and the alleged events took place in the District of Columbia.

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

TransFirst Group, Inc. v. Magliarditi · filed 2017-02-15(b)

Further, all. Defendants reside in Nevada and a substantial part of the alleged facts giving rise to the causes of action occurred in Nevada, Therefore, the court concludes that this action could have been brought in the District of Nevada.

Section 1391 permits venue in the District of Guam when Guam and its officials are defendants and the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.

Davis v. Guam · filed 2017-03-08

Venue is proper in this judicial district, the District Court of Guam, because Defendants are Guam, the Government of Guam and its officials, and all of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

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

Clanton v. United States · filed 2017-03-14(b)

Venue is proper, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because the Government, by and through its agents, resides within the Southern District of Illinois, and the alleged negligent acts and omissions giving rise to this claim occurred within the Southern District of Illinois.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) do not establish venue in a district where no defendant resides and neither the relevant events nor the property at issue are located.

McDermott v. Bb&t Bank Corporation · filed 2017-01-03(b)(1), (b)(2)

No Defendant resides in this judicial district, see id. § 1391(b)(1); a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise” to Plaintiffs’ claims did not occur in this judicial district (they occurred in the District of Maryland), id. 1391(b)(2); and the property at issue in this matter is not situated in this judicial district (it is situated in the District of Maryland), id.

Section 1391(b) and (c) require a basis for venue in the district where the action is filed.

Emrit v. DMV · filed 2017-06-30(b), (c)

It is apparent from Emrit’s complaint that no conceivable basis exists for venue in the District of Maryland.

Section 1391(b) and (c) govern where a civil action may be brought and how residency affects venue.

Emrit v. Crescent Hardy · filed 2017-06-30(b), (c)

It is apparent from Emrit’s complaint that no conceivable basis exists for venue in the District of Maryland.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendant does not reside, no events giving rise to the claim occurred, and the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Dumitrescu v. Dyncorp International, LLC · filed 2017-06-30(b)

Plaintiff has premised venue in this district on 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3), Am. Compl. ¶ 6, but because the Court has concluded that it lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant, subsection (b)(3) does not provide a basis for venue in this district. And because the defendant does not reside in this district and none of the events at issue occurred here, neither subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2) supply a basis for venue in this district either.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) permits venue in the District of Columbia when the alleged discrimination occurred there and the plaintiff worked for its public schools.

Younger v. District of Columbia Public Schools · filed 2017-07-21(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because the alleged discrimination occurred in the District of Columbia, and Plaintiff was employed by the District of Columbia Public Schools, venue is proper here as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue where no defendant resides, none of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, and another district is available.

Lemon v. Kramer · filed 2017-09-11(b)

None of the statutory bases for venue apply and venue is improper in this District.

Section 1391(b) permits a civil action only in a district that satisfies its defendant-residence, substantial-events, or fallback venue criteria.

Zhou v. Herring · filed 2017-10-23(b)

None of these criteria are met in this case because all of the allegedly illegal conduct appears to have occurred in Virginia.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendants do not reside, no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, and its fallback provision does not apply.

HAIRSTON v. MARTINSBURG VA MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2017-11-29(b)

In sum, this district is an improper venue under § 1391(b) for the claims brought in this lawsuit.

Section 1391(b) does not make venue proper in a district where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

HAIRSTON v. MARTINSBURG VA MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2017-11-30(b)

The Court finds that venue is improper in this district under any applicable analysis.

Section 1391(b)(1)-(2) supports venue in the district where the alleged events occurred.

Cole v. Fergerson · filed 2017-11-30(b)(1)-(2)

Venue is proper in the Western District of Arkansas; and the interests of justice would be best served by transferring this case there. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1)-(2) & 1406(a).

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in the Central District of California for claims against Coalinga State Hospital officials based on alleged conduct there.

Hydrick v. Wilson · filed 2017-09-26(b)

The facility-specific claims, brought against officials at Coalinga State Hospital and based on conduct alleged to have occurred there, would be dismissed for improper venue even if the complaint were amended.

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

Palomarez v. Young · filed 2018-02-28(b)

Respondent Young resides in South Dakota, Petitioner currently is confined in South Dakota, and the events or omissions giving rise to Petitioner’s claims all occurred in South Dakota. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Therefore, venue is proper in the District of South Dakota.

Section 1391(b) governs whether a district is a proper venue for a civil action.

Marshall v. Walt Disney Co. · filed 2018-06-19(b)

For the reasons set forth at length at the hearing, the court finds that venue is improper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) but would be proper in the Eastern District of North Carolina.

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

Wolff v. The United States Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2018-06-20(b)(1), (2)

To the extent he is attempting to raise claims concerning the conditions of his confinement in New Hampshire, venue is not proper in the District of Massachusetts. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2) (providing for venue in the judicial district in which “any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located” or the judicial district in which “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside or a substantial part of the events or property is located; its personal-jurisdiction fallback applies only if no other district qualifies.

Gage v. Somerset County · filed 2018-08-21(b)

Despite Plaintiff’s inability to avail himself of the first two options under Section 1391(b), Plaintiff cannot resort to the residual opportunity to lay venue in simply any federal district court where personal jurisdiction may lie, for there is a federal district court in which venue would be proper. See id. § 1391(b)(3). Because both Plaintiff and Defendant Bohn are residents of New Jersey, venue is proper in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. If that were not enough, the District of New Jersey is also the proper venue because a substantial part, if not all, of the alleged events or omissions and the property at issue are located there. Accordingly, the Court finds that venue is improper in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Section 1391(b) requires a basis for venue in the chosen district, such as a qualifying defendant residence or events giving rise to the claim.

Mays v. Swope Health Services · filed 2018-08-27(b)

Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that there are any relevant contacts with Kansas, and the court therefore determines that venue is not proper in Kansas.

Section 1391(b) did not permit venue in Massachusetts when no defendant resided there and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there.

Jacobs v. Fillipi · filed 2018-10-11(b)

Thus, venue is not proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendant is headquartered and the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Bradley v. Vox Media, Inc.. · filed 2018-09-04(b)(1), (2)

Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia because Defendant Vox Media, Inc. is headquartered in the District and the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims also occurred in the District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2).

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in a district where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Jacobs v. Fillipi · filed 2018-10-15(b)

Here, subsections (1) and (3) of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) do not establish venue in the District of Massachusetts because none of the defendants reside in Massachusetts. ... Likewise, subsection (2) does not provide for venue within this district because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” did not occur in the District of Massachusetts.

Section 1391 does not permit venue in a district where the defendant does not reside and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, when another district is available.

Graphic Communications Conference / International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 285m v. McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc. · filed 2018-11-29

Venue is improper in this judicial district because none of the provisions of section 1391 of Title 28 of the United States Code applies, as explained above.

Section 1391(b) supports venue in a district where the parties reside and the agreement and its enforcement occurred.

United States v. Greer · filed 2019-01-22(b)

Venue properly lies in this Court because all parties reside in this district, and the Agreement and enforcement thereof occurred in this district.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where all defendants reside in the same state or a substantial part of the events occurred; its fallback provision applies only when no other district is available.

Peters v. Sloan · filed 2019-04-11(b)

The district court also rightly found venue improper. See Cont’l Ins. Co. v. M/V Orsula, 354 F.3d 603, 608 (7th Cir. 2003). The defendants do not all reside in Illinois, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1); the mortgage execution, payments, and the foreclosure occurred in Iowa, see id. § 1391(b)(2); and Peters could have brought this action in Iowa or California, see id. § 1391(b)(3).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and none of the events giving rise to the claim occurred when another district is available.

Alpine v. Smith · filed 2019-05-14(b)

As best the Court can discern, and without addressing the merits, the action is filed in the wrong venue because the petition seeks damages for actions that occurred in a Texas prison, and none of the parties are alleged to reside in the District of Massachusetts. 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).

Section 1391(b) bases venue on the defendants’ residence or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Williams v. United States · filed 2019-06-05(b)

Finally, the district court did not err in concluding that offering Williams the opportunity to amend his complaint would be futile because “he still could not overcome the hurdles of immunity and venue.” ROA at 61. On appeal, Williams does not explain why venue is proper in Kansas, i.e., whether Defendants are residents of Kansas or whether “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in Kansas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) and (c) govern where a civil action may be brought and how residency is determined for venue.

Draper v. USDC WDVA Danville Division · filed 2019-06-18(b), (c)

It is apparent from Draper’s complaint that no conceivable basis exists for venue in the Eastern District of Virginia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) (2012) (describing venue and residency requirements).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events occurred; its fallback applies only when no other district is available.

Study Logic LLC v. Farmer Bros Co · filed 2019-07-29(b)

As the court in New York cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant, Defendant does not reside in New York for purposes of venue. Further, the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Texas. Venue is thus improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Finally, venue is appropriate in Texas, effectively nullifying 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3).

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in a district when the defendants are based elsewhere and all relevant events occurred elsewhere.

Atherton v. Hastings-on-Hudson Police Depa · filed 2019-07-30(b)

But the complaint establishes that venue in Illinois is improper, so the district court acted properly when it addressed the defense. Atherton specifies in her complaint that the defendants are New York government entities, and all relevant events—including Atherton’s psychiatric commitment—took place in that state. See 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.

Government Employees Insurance Company v. Yoo, M.D. · filed 2019-08-08(b)(1), (b)(2)

It is undisputed that this action could have been brought in New Jersey, as all defendants reside there and substantial events giving rise to the claims took place in New Jersey.

Section 1391(b) governs where a civil action may be filed based on the defendants’ residence, the events giving rise to the claim, or personal jurisdiction.

Padilla v. Dallas Co · filed 2019-08-09(b)

This Court is the wrong venue for this action because: (1) none of the Defendants are alleged to reside in the District of Connecticut; (2) none of the events or omissions giving rise to Mr. Padilla’s claims—let alone any “substantial part” of them—are alleged to have occurred in the District of Connecticut; and (3) no facts have been pleaded indicating that any of the Defendants are subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction, insofar as it has not been alleged that any Defendants have any contacts with the State of Connecticut or transact business with or in Connecticut.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) do not permit venue in a district where no defendant is alleged to reside and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Rispers v. Doe · filed 2019-08-12(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claim arose in this district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1), (2).

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence, a substantial part of the events or property at issue, or, when no other district qualifies, personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Moorish Nation v. US Department of State · filed 2019-08-14(b)

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state where 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) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. ... No connection of any kind has been identified between this case and the state of ... Nevada.

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

Abergel v. Atlas Recovery Sober Living · filed 2019-08-19(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants reside in this District or that a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying his claim arose in this District, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

(PC) Smith v. Batterson · filed 2019-08-21(b)

Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; its fallback applies only if no other district is available.

Williams v. Key · filed 2019-08-23(b)

When jurisdiction is not based solely on diversity, venue is proper in (1) the district in which any defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the same state; (2) the 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; or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Plaintiff has not named any Defendants who are located in the Western District of Washington. Therefore, the Court concludes venue is improper.

Section 1391 permits venue where defendants reside and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred.

Dinh v. WeRunTexas, LLC d/b/a Mercy, We Run Hou, LLC d/b/a Engine Room · filed 2019-08-26(b), (d)

Venue is proper in the Southern District. of Texas, Houston Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (d) because Defendants reside in this District, a substantial part of ... the events forming the basis of this action occurred in this district and the parties have agreed to this venue.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the parties transacted business and the events underlying the complaint occurred.

Walker v. E & L Transfer, LLC · filed 2019-08-27(b)

Venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas, pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the parties transacted business in this judicial district and the events underlying this complaint occurred here.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides, no substantial part of the events occurred, and the defendants are not subject to personal jurisdiction.

Ferguson v. State of Georgia · filed 2019-08-29(b)

To the extent that the plaintiff challenges the events surrounding his arrest in Georgia, the plaintiff cannot pursue the lawsuit in this district. Section 1391 of Title 28 says that a plaintiff may file a civil case “(1) in a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents in the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which the defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. §1391. The defendants the plaintiff has sued don’t live in Wisconsin, the events the plaintiff describes didn’t happen in Wisconsin, and the defendants aren’t subject to this court’s personal jurisdiction.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the district where the defendant board is located.

Danenberg v. Members of the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles · filed 2019-08-30(b)

Because the Board is located in Atlanta, Georgia, the proper venue is the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where the insurance policy at issue was issued and related claims against putative insureds are pending.

Twin City Fire Insurance Company v. Law Offices of John S. Xydakis, P.C. · filed 2019-09-16

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as the case addresses coverage under an insurance policy issued in this district, related to claims pending against putative insureds within the geographical boundaries of this district.

Section 1391 permits venue where the alleged acts occurred and the defendants regularly conducted business.

Bhatia v. Vaswani · filed 2019-09-25

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the acts described in the second amended complaint took place in this district, and at all relevant times Defendants regularly and continuously conducted business within this district.

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

Weiss v. Logan County Cemeteries District · filed 2019-09-30(b)(1), (b)(2)

Venue is proper because Defendant resides within the District and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred within the District.

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where defendants’ conduct affected the plaintiff and the defendants do business.

Perta v. National Credit Care Corporation · filed 2019-09-30

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because Defendants’ actions and conduct affected Plaintiff within this district and Defendants conduct business within this district.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside or a substantial part of the events occurred; its fallback provision applies only when no other district is available.

Gray v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. · filed 2019-10-01(b)

Venue is not proper in New Mexico. Defendant Rolling Hills does not reside in New Mexico, so § 1391(b)(1) does not permit venue in New Mexico. A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim did not occur in New Mexico, so § 1391(b)(2) also does not permit venue in New Mexico. And because venue is proper in another district, § 1391(b)(3) is not applicable.

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

Johnson v. Green · filed 2019-10-02(b)

A lawsuit may be filed in a judicial district in which the defendant resides, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), or in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The plaintiff has named one defendant, a detective from Hadley, Massachusetts. He does not suggest that Detective Green lives in Connecticut. In addition, this action concerns the preparation of a statement used in a Massachusetts state criminal proceeding. The only reference to Connecticut is that Detective Green obtained a police report from Connecticut for use in preparing his statement. Thus, the plaintiff has not alleged facts suggesting that a substantial part of the events occurred in Connecticut. The Court concludes that venue is not proper in the District of Connecticut.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district where no defendant resides and none of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

DeBarros v. Family Practice Group, P.C. · filed 2019-10-03(b)

It is equally clear that venue is improper in this District.

Section 1391(b) supports venue in a district where the defendant operates facilities and all or most events giving rise to the action occurred.

Shubat, Chelsea v. Cave Enterprises Operations, LLC · filed 2019-10-04(b)

Venue is proper in, and defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of, this Court because it maintains facilities and business operations in this district, and all or most of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 200e-5(f)(3).

Section 1391 does not make an Alabama federal court an appropriate venue for claims concerning employment in Illinois.

Grant v. Office of the Secretary of Defense · filed 2019-10-04

Moreover, a federal court in Alabama is not the appropriate venue for Plaintiff’s claims regarding his employment in the State of Illinois. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue where no defendant resides, no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, and the action may be brought in another district.

Farion v. Ezzo · filed 2019-10-07(b)

Plaintiff does not allege that any of the Defendants are domiciled in this District to make venue proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Complaint ¶¶ 7–8. Also, Plaintiff does not satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because she does not allege that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. The event giving rise to the claim, a motor vehicle accident, occurred in the County of Sussex, New Jersey. Complaint ¶¶ 18, 21. Last, Plaintiff fails to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3), because this action may otherwise be brought in other districts, see infra. Accordingly, venue is not proper in the Southern District of New York under any of Plaintiff’s asserted grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2) or (3).

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

Dorch v. Magna Automotive Systems · filed 2019-10-09(b)

For plaintiff’s action to belong in the District of Kansas, either: (1) defendant must reside in Kansas or (2) a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s employment discrimination action must have occurred in Kansas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Neither requirement appears satisfied from plaintiff’s complaint.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper where no defendant resides in the district, no substantial part of the events occurred there, and the defendant cannot be found there.

HOYE v. SCI CAMP HILL MEDICAL DEPT. · filed 2019-10-15(b)

In sum, this district is an improper venue under § 1391(b) for the claims brought in this lawsuit.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside or a substantial part of the events occurred, with a personal-jurisdiction fallback if no other district is available.

Lietzke v. City of Birmingham · filed 2019-10-22(b)

However, from the face of the Complaint, it is clear that venue is improper in the District of Nebraska.

Section 1391(b)(1)-(2) permits venue where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Moment v. Doe · filed 2019-10-23(b)(1)-(2)

Venue is proper in the Northern District of lowa; and the interests of justice would best be served by transferring this case there.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside or a substantial part of the events occurred, with a fallback if no other district qualifies.

Lietzke v. County of Montgomery · filed 2019-10-22(b)

However, from the face of the Complaint, it is clear that venue is improper in the District of Nebraska. None of the events described in the Complaint occurred in Nebraska, the Complaint suggests that Defendants reside in Alabama,2 and Lietzke resides in Alabama.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) permits a civil action where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Bryce v. Choice Hotels International · filed 2019-10-23(b)(1), (2)

The district court properly dismissed Bryce’s action because Bryce failed to establish that any defendant resides in the District of Oregon or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to her claims occurred there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2) (describing where a civil action may be brought).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant is shown to reside and no substantial part of the events occurred, when venue is available elsewhere.

Koivisto v. Allstate Insurance, LTD. · filed 2019-10-29(b)

Thus, his claims arose in California, not in Idaho. Nothing in the Complaint suggests that the defendant insurance company is a resident of Idaho or that venue would not be proper in a California federal court. (Dkt. 3 at 1-3.) As such, venue is improper in Idaho.