28 U.S.C. § 1391

Section 1391 does not permit venue in a district where no party resides and none of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Fouts v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · filed 2025-01-15(b), (e)(1)

Because no party resides in this District, and because the events giving rise to Fouts’s claims did not occur here, the Court thus determines that under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is not proper.

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

Cora v. Garhann · filed 2025-01-13(b)

Because the complaint does not state facts suggesting that the defendants reside in New York,or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise tothe Pennsylvania claims occurred in a county within the Southern District of New York, this district is not a proper venue for these claims.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district connected to the defendants and to a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the claims.

Bliss-Miller v. Laborers International Union of North America Local 158 · filed 2021-09-29(b)(1), (b)(2)

Venue is proper in this Court, as this suit has been brought in the district where Defendants conduct business and where a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the claims occurred.

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

Harris 370250 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2021-09-17(b)

Because both defendants reside in the Western District and Harris alleges that all events giving rise to this action took place in the Western District, venue is not proper in the Eastern District.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) permit venue based on defendants’ residence or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

Diarra v. United States Government, officers, agencys, employees, or corporations · filed 2021-09-21(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 section 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Taal v. St. Mary's Bank · filed 2020-08-17(b)(1), (b)(2)

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

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

Richards v. Washington · filed 2020-08-17(b)(1), (b)(2)

Venue is proper in the "district in which any defendant resides" or the "district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2). ... Plaintiff's complaint also alleged that all the relevant events occurred in Baraga County. Id. at 3–25. ... The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan is therefore the more appropriate and convenient forum for the action.

Section 1391(b) requires a basis for venue tied to the defendant’s residence, the events or property at issue, or, when no other district is available, personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Clervrain v. Pompeo · filed 2020-08-14(b)

Plaintiff has met none of the requirements of § 1391 and venue is therefore improper.

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

SMITH v. DEGOIAN · filed 2020-07-29(b)(1), (b)(2)

As a preliminary matter, this action may have been brought in the Southern District of New York under either section 1391(b)(1) or 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) requires a listed basis for venue in the chosen district.

Hurt v. United States · filed 2020-07-23(b)

In short, none of the requirements of § 1391 are present.

Section 1391 does not establish venue in a district where no defendant resides and no events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, absent another basis for venue.

Hurt v. United States of America · filed 2020-07-02

In short, none of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 are present in this case, and venue is therefore improper.

Section 1391 does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and no event giving rise to the claim occurred, absent another basis for venue.

Hurt v. U.S. Constitution · filed 2020-07-06

In short, none of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 are present in this case, and venue is therefore improper.

Section 1391 does not establish venue where the plaintiff alleges no defendant’s residence or events or omissions connected to the district.

Hurt v. U.S. Constitution · filed 2020-06-25

In short, none of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 are present in this case, and venue is therefore improper.

Section 1391(b) requires a qualifying defendant residence, claim-related event or property, or fallback personal-jurisdiction basis for venue.

Hurt v. U.S. Constitution · filed 2020-06-10(b)

In sum, none of the requirements of § 1391 are present in this case and venue is therefore improper.

Section 1391’s general venue provisions do not apply when a special statutory venue requirement governs the claim.

Integrity Social Work Services, Lcsw, LLC v. Azar · filed 2020-06-11

Defendants correctly point out that these general venue provisions “do not apply when excluded by law or special statutory review.”

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in a district where no defendant is alleged to reside and no events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Hurt v. United States of America · filed 2020-06-18(b)

In short, none of the requirements of § 1391 are present in this case, and venue is therefore improper.

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

Richards 641715 v. Perttu · filed 2020-06-04(b)(1)-(2)

The events giving rise to the present action appear to have occurred in Baraga County, Michigan. And because public officials sued in their official capacity “reside” in the county where they perform their official duties, Defendant Perta resides in Baraga County, Michigan. See O’Neill v. Battisti, 472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972). Baraga County is located in the Western District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2). Venue, therefore, is proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, and not this Court.

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

Garcia v. Diaz · filed 2020-05-29(b)

In this case, the claim arose in Riverside 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 the claim occurred, while (b)(3) is unavailable if the action could be brought in another district.

Barth v. Mabry Carlton Ranch Inc. · filed 2020-06-01(b)(2)–(3)

Consequently, Magistrate Judge Mansfield correctly concluded that venue is improper under § 1391(b)(2). Magistrate Judge Mansfield also did not err in finding inapplicable § 1391(b)(3) because this action could have been—and in fact was—brought in the Middle District of Florida.

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

Century HLM, LLC v. CardioQuip LP · filed 2020-02-12(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(2)

Venue for this action could be properly in this district and in the Southern District of Texas. This action could have been brought in that district, because defendant was organized under the law of Texas, its principal place of business is there, it is subject to the Court's personal jurisdiction there, and it alleges generally that "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred" there. (Doc. 15 at ¶ 105). Plaintiff makes similar allegations, including generally that defendant "has committed certain torts in St. Louis County, Missouri which are the subject of the Petition." (Doc. 7 at 3.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2) and (c)(2).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district based on a defendant’s personal jurisdiction there when another district qualifies under its other venue provisions.

Guajardo v. State Bar of Texas · filed 2020-02-13(b)

The third possibility is also inapplicable for concluding that venue is proper in Texas since venue would be proper in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

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

Harris v. Denully · filed 2020-02-13(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the proper venue for a civil action is the judicial district “in which any defendant resides,” “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” or where “a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” The plaintiff does not allege that any of the events he complains about occurred in the Eastern District of New York, or that the defendants are located in this district. The plaintiff was arrested near West 28th Street and West 34th Street in Manhattan in the Southern District of New York, and the defendants are also based in Manhattan. ... Accordingly, this Court is not the appropriate court in which to file this action.

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

Harris v. Sowell · filed 2020-02-13(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the proper venue for a civil action is the judicial district “in which any defendant resides,” “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” or where “a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.” The plaintiff does not allege that any of the events he complains about occurred in the Eastern District of New York, or that the defendants are located in this district. The plaintiff was arrested near West 28th Street and West 34th Street in Manhattan in the Southern District of New York, and the defendants are also based in Manhattan.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside or the claim arose; the location of witnesses alone does not establish venue.

Barlow v. Billy · filed 2020-02-14(b)

However, even if that is so, witnesses are not parties. The relevant venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), provides that a non-diversity case “may be brought only in the judicial district where all defendants reside or in which the claim arose.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... The court is satisfied that venue for this case is properly in the Southern District.

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

ISLAAM v. KUBICKI · filed 2020-02-14(b)

Here, it does not appear that any of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in New Jersey, nor does it appear that all of the Defendants reside in New Jersey.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district with no qualifying connection to the defendants or the dispute when venue is available in another district.

Gregory v. Small & Loeb GCA Law Partners LLC · filed 2020-02-20(b)

Thus, because all defendants appear to be “of California,” venue of this action would be proper in a California district in which any defendant resides or in which a substantial part of the events occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2). Accordingly, plaintiff cannot establish venue in this district under § 1391(b)(3). Venue is improper in the Eastern District of North Carolina.

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

Shivananjappa v. Bhayani · filed 2020-02-24(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that the defendant resides in this judicial district or that the events or omissions giving rise to her claims occurred in this judicial district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Vargo v. D & M Tours, Inc. · filed 2020-03-02(b)

Even more troubling, despite directly citing 28 U.S.C. § 1391 in his complaint, Vargo’s assertions that this Court was the proper venue for this matter do not even remotely follow the requirements of that statute.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) make venue improper in a district where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Johnson v. Buffalo Police Department · filed 2020-03-06(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) does not permit venue in a proposed district when all defendants and the events giving rise to the claims are in another district.

(PC) Gardner v. Newsom · filed 2020-03-12(b)

Here, this action could not have been originally brought in the Sacramento Division or the Central District, as all Defendants are located and the incidents giving rise to the claims occurred, in the Eastern District of California.

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

Ngambo v. Christopher · filed 2020-03-13(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 claims arose in this District, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1), (2).

Section 1391 places venue for claims about a prisoner’s mental health diagnosis and treatment in the district where the prisoner is incarcerated.

Grandinetti v. Sebastian, Jr. · filed 2020-03-17

It is also clear that venue for Grandinetti’s claims regarding his mental health diagnosis or treatment lies in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, where Grandinetti is incarcerated. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

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

(PC) Jordan v. Diaz · filed 2020-03-19(b)

In this case, the defendants are located, and the claim arose, in Riverside County which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Section 1391 permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred and the defendant resides.

Friends of Lydia Ann Channel v. Lydia Ann Channel Moorings, LLC · filed 2020-03-24(b), (c)

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)+(c) because the alleged violations occurred in the Southern District of Texas, a substantial part of the federal agency actions and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district, and LACM resides in the Southern District of Texas.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the Eastern District of New York where the defendants reside or do business in Nassau County and the vessel involved in the injury departed from and returned there.

DeMarco v. Party Boat Central of Freeport, Inc. · filed 2020-03-06(b)

Finally, Defendants’ party boat, on which Plaintiff sustained her injuries, “boarded, departed and returned to and from the docks in Freeport, New York” (ECF No. 5 § 11), which is also located in Nassau County. Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York.

Section 1391(b) does not provide venue in a district where the defendants do not reside and no substantial part of the events occurred, when another district provides venue.

McCarthy v. Hampton Roads Regional Jail · filed 2020-03-30(b)

Under the alleged facts of this case, this statute does not provide venue in the District of the Massachusetts. Subsection (1) is inapplicable because the presumed defendants are not residents of Massachusetts. Subsection (2) does not support venue in this Court because the events giving rise to McCarthy’s allegations did not occur in Massachusetts. Because venue would exist in a federal district court in Virginia, subsection (3) is irrelevant.

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

Luctama v. Knickerbocker · filed 2020-03-30(b)(1)-(3)

Venue is improper in this district because defendant does not reside in New York, the car accident giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims occurred in Connecticut, not New York, and defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York.

Section 1391(b) places federal claims arising from proceedings in Orange County in the Central District of California.

Kindred v. Menninger · filed 2020-04-02(b)

The proper venue for federal claims arising in Orange County is the Central District of California.

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

Gibson Foundation, Inc. v. Norris · filed 2020-04-06(b)

In addition to there being no jurisdiction in this Court, venue is improper because this is not “a judicial district in which any defendant resides,” or “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Moultrie v. Kings County Hospital · filed 2020-04-09(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 where the defendants reside or a substantial part of the events occurred, with a fallback when no other district is available.

SAMI-Systematic Analysis Management Inc. v. Omnivere Acquisitions, LLC · filed 2020-04-14(b)

Venue is improper under § 1391(b)(1) because none of the Defendants are alleged to reside in Maryland. ... Section 1391(b)(2) is also inapplicable. The Complaint does not allege that any actions took place in Maryland. ... Section 1391(b)(3) is likewise inapposite, as the case may be brought in another district. Accordingly, venue is improper in this district.

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 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Mays v. Shah · filed 2020-04-06(b)

The federal venue statute provides that a civil rights action may be brought in (1) the judicial district in which any defendant resides (if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located), or (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When Mays commenced this action, he was incarcerated at Robinson, and all of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims in this case occurred at this facility, which is situated in the federal judicial district of the Southern District of Illinois.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where qualifying defendants reside or a substantial part of the events occurred, with a fallback district if neither basis is available.

Moratti v. Washington State Department of Corrections · filed 2020-04-15(b)

When jurisdiction is not founded 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). ... Therefore, the Court concludes that venue is improper.

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

Dicken v. Bush · filed 2020-04-22(b)

Under the revised venue statute, venue in federal-question cases lies in the district in which any defendant resides or in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... In these circumstances, venue is proper only in the Eastern District.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and no events giving rise to the claim occurred.

George v. 17 Judicial District · filed 2020-04-22(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that the defendants reside in this judicial district or that the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred in this judicial district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

BARNES v. SMITH · filed 2020-05-06(b)

Here, it does not appear that any of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in New Jersey, nor does it appear that all of the Defendants reside in New Jersey.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper where the defendant does not reside and no events giving rise to the claim occurred, if another district is available.

RAYCO C.A. v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. · filed 2020-05-06(b)

Under Section 1391, the District of New Jersey is not an appropriate venue in which to lay this action. The sole Defendant is not a citizen of New Jersey and, for reasons previously discussed, is not subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Nor is there any indication that any part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in New Jersey.

Under § 1391(b)(1) and (2), venue is improper in a district where no defendant is alleged to reside and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Bellinger v. Fludd · filed 2020-05-08(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because he 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 does not appear to be proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

SMITH v. INDIANA PACKERS CORPORATION · filed 2020-05-13(b)

Venue is not proper here because this Court is not a judicial district in which any defendant resides or a judicial district in which any events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Section 1391(b) permits a civil action in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred or, when all defendants reside in the same state, where any defendant resides.

Wade v. Wynn · filed 2020-05-14(b)

Instead, the general venue statute for civil cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, is applicable in this case. Section 1391(b) states that a civil action may be brought in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” Alternatively, a civil action may be brought in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located.” ... Accordingly, this judicial district is a proper venue for the IFP complaint.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) make venue improper in a district where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

El v. Mastronardi · filed 2020-05-05(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)(1) and (2) make venue improper in a district where no defendant is alleged to reside and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Diomande v. John Doe 1 · filed 2020-05-12(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that 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 a civil action where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Potter v. Cross Country Mortgage, Inc. · filed 2020-05-13(b)(1), (b)(2)

The district court properly dismissed Potter’s action for improper venue because Potter failed to establish that any defendant resides in the Central District of California or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred there.

Section 1391(b) governs where a civil action may be brought, including a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Isaac v. Ward · filed 2020-05-20(b)

Plaintiff complains about events occurring in Fulton County, Georgia, which is within the Northern District of Georgia. 28 U.S.C. § 90(a)(2). Thus, venue is proper in that District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on defendant residence or where a substantial part of the events occurred; its personal-jurisdiction fallback applies only if no other district qualifies.

Tomas v. Buckley · filed 2020-05-22(b)

Under the facts Plaintiff has alleged, this statute does not provide venue in the District of the Massachusetts. Subsection (1) is inapplicable because the Defendants are not residents of Massachusetts. Subsection (2) does not support venue in this district because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims did not occur in Massachusetts. Because venue would be proper in the District of Rhode Island, subsection (3) is irrelevant.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district with no substantial connection to the defendants or events when the action could have been brought elsewhere.

Copeland v. US Bank Cust PC5 Sterling National · filed 2020-05-26(b)

Because fewer than all of the defendants reside in the District of Connecticut, no "substantial part" of the alleged events occurred in Connecticut, and because this action should have been properly brought in another district, the District of Connecticut is an improper venue for this action.

Section 1391 places venue for a civil rights claim in the district where the defendants reside or where the claim arose.

Brooks v. Harry-Dobbins · filed 2020-05-29

When, as in this case, jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1391 provides that venue is proper only in the judicial district where the defendants reside or in which the claim arose.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper when none of its defendant-residence, claim-related events or property, or fallback personal-jurisdiction requirements is met.

Hurt v. Motel 6 · filed 2020-06-04(b)

In sum, none of the requirements of § 1391 are present in this case and venue is therefore improper.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred or property is located, or, if no other district is available, personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Hurt v. U.S. Constitution · filed 2020-06-05(b)

In sum, none of the requirements of § 1391 are present in this case and venue is therefore improper.

Section 1391 does not establish venue in a district where neither party resides, no events giving rise to the claim occurred, and no defendant is shown to be subject to personal jurisdiction.

Demos v. Trump · filed 2020-06-08(b), (e)(1)

The Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite prima facie showing that venue is proper in this judicial district.

Section 1391(b) requires the complaint to show that venue is proper in the district where the plaintiff files suit.

Purugganan v. Department of Public Safety · filed 2020-06-08(b)

Purugganan fails to state a colorable claim for relief showing that the Court has jurisdiction over his claims and that venue lies in this district court.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence, a substantial connection to the district, or, when no other district is available, personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Hurt v. U.S. Constitution · filed 2020-06-08(b)

In sum, none of the requirements of § 1391 are present in this case and venue is therefore improper.

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

Bauer v. Credit Central LLC · filed 2020-06-08(b)

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), as Credit Central is headquartered in Greenville, South Carolina and a substantial part of the events occurred here.

Section 1391(b) sets the districts where a civil action may be brought based on defendants’ residence, substantial events or property, or, if no other district is available, personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Hurt v. U.S. Constitution · filed 2020-06-09(b)

In sum, none of the requirements of § 1391 are present in this case and venue is therefore improper.

Section 1391(b)(1)–(2) permits venue where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the state, or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

TURNER v. BARRETT AND FARAHANY · filed 2020-06-13(b)(1)-(2)

The relevant venue provisions state that “[a] civil action may be brought in . . . a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located,” or 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)(1)-(2). According to the allegations in the Complaint, no events giving rise to this suit occurred in the Middle District of Georgia; nor does Plaintiff identify the residence of any named Defendant as being in the Middle District of Georgia. [Doc. 1]. Instead, it appears from the allegations in the Complaint that the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Atlanta, which is in the Northern District of Georgia. [Id., pp. 4—5]. Thus, the Middle District of Georgia is not the proper venue.

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

Brown v. LeBarre · filed 2020-06-15(b)

The statute provides that a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides; or (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. ... The facts in the complaint indicate that venue would be proper in the Western District rather than in the Eastern District.

Section 1391(b) places venue where all defendants reside or where the claim arose.

Harris v. Nader · filed 2020-06-15(b)

Venue is not proper in this district. 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).

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in a district where no defendant appears to reside and no claim appears to have arisen.

Cameron v. State of Ohio · filed 2020-06-17(b)

Plaintiff presents no facts from which the Court could infer that the Eastern District of Washington is the appropriate venue for his claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). None of the claims appears to have occurred in this District and none of the Defendants appears to reside in this District.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district that satisfies its defendant residence, substantial events, or fallback personal jurisdiction requirements.

Hurt v. United States of America · filed 2020-06-17(b)

In short, none of the requirements of § 1391 are present in this case, and venue is therefore improper.

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

DOE v. ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2020-06-22(b)(1)-(2)

Here, the Court finds that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1)-(2), because Defendant’s principle place of business is in that district and a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in that district.

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.

Howard v. Pearl · filed 2020-06-22(b)

The underlying events occurred in Beverly Hills, California, where Defendants reside. Beverly Hills is located in Los Angeles County, which falls within the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c). Venue is therefore proper in the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Licausi v. Suffolk County · filed 2020-06-22(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 claims arose in this district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1), (2).

Section 1391(b) requires a civil action to be filed in a district connected to the defendant or the claim, subject to a personal-jurisdiction fallback when no other district is available.

ONeil v. State of Florida · filed 2020-06-24(b)

Plaintiff has not alleged any ... connection of any kind between her claims and this District. None of the above venue provisions ... renders this District a proper venue for this case.

Section 1391(b) places venue in the judicial district where all defendants reside or where the claim arose.

Brooks v. Horton · filed 2020-06-25(b)

Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan, which is located in the Western District of Michigan. Venue is in the judicial district where either all defendants reside or where the claim arose.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district when none of its listed grounds applies.

O'Neil v. City of Oswego · filed 2020-06-26(b)

None of the above venue provisions renders this ... District a proper venue for this case.

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

RH Fund XX LLC v. Hyatt · filed 2020-06-26(b)(1), (b)(2)

Venue is proper with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because the most substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this judicial district, and the real property which is the subject of this action is located in this district, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Defendant resides in this judicial circuit.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, when another district is available.

Ali v. Stranlay · filed 2020-06-29(b)

Venue for any new lawsuit against Defendants is not proper in the Eastern District of Michigan, because Plaintiff has failed to allege that any of the acts, events, or omissions which form the basis of his lawsuit took place in the Eastern District of Michigan.

Section 1391 places venue for claims arising at a particular location in the appropriate federal judicial district.

Knight v. Tate · filed 2020-06-30

In addition, the Federal Court in the Northern District of Illinois is the proper venue for claims arising at Dixon, which is located in Lee County, Illinois.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the statutory requirements concerning defendants’ residence, relevant events or property, or the fallback basis are met.

Hurt v. U.S. Constitution · filed 2020-06-30(b)

In short, none of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391! are present in this case, and venue is therefore improper.

Section 1391(b) does not make a district a proper venue when the claims have no alleged connection to it.

Asifuah v. Cohen · filed 2020-06-30(b)

Plaintiff has alleged no connection of any kind between his ... claims and this District. None of the above venue provisions renders this District a proper venue ... for this case.

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

Williams v. Carlson · filed 2020-07-01(b)

Venue is therefore proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, not this Court.

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.

Williams 225280 v. Carlson · filed 2020-07-01(b)

The named defendants reside in Ingham County or Chippewa County, Michigan, and the events giving rise to the complaint appear to have occurred in those counties, as well as Alger County, Michigan. ... Venue is therefore proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, not this Court.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant is alleged to reside and no events giving rise to the claim are alleged to have occurred.

Eden v. Stoker · filed 2020-07-10(b)

Nonetheless, proper venue for Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims does not lie in this district.

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

Lowe v. Hamilton · filed 2020-07-15(b)

In this case, because neither the parties nor the alleged legal violations have the requisite connection to the Southern District of Texas, the complaint was not properly filed here.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendant does not reside, the events giving rise to the claim did not occur, and the property in dispute is not located.

Douse v. Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, Inc. · filed 2020-07-20(b)

... (2) venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant resides here, the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district, or the property in dispute is in this district. Based upon the record before the Court, the obvious answer to all of these question is no.

A plaintiff’s incarceration in a district does not make it a proper venue under § 1391(b) when the defendant and the events underlying the claim are in another district.

Haynes v. Phillips · filed 2020-07-21(b)

Therefore, proper venue for Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims does not lie in this district.

Section 1391(b) and (c) provide rules for determining whether venue is proper in a civil action.

Oppenheimer v. Johnson · filed 2020-07-23(b), (c)

Finally, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c).

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

Gardner v. New York City · filed 2020-07-23(b)

First, because the City of New York is located within the Eastern District of New York as well as this District, venue is proper in that district under § 1391(b)(1). Second, as the underlying events occurred in Brooklyn, which is in Kings County, venue is proper in the Eastern District under § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) does not make venue proper where a plaintiff is incarcerated when the defendants reside and the alleged events occurred in another district.

Reyes v. Superior Court of California, County of Orange · filed 2020-07-24(b)

While Plaintiff is currently housed at a correctional institution within this judicial district,1 none of the defendants as specified reside in this district.2 In addition, the claims are alleged to have arisen at the Superior Court of California, County of Orange (see Doc. 1 at 1), which is in the Southern Division of the Central District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s suit should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division.

Section 1391(b)(1)-(2) does not permit venue in a district with no connection to the defendants or the events giving rise to the claim.

Genao v. Police Service Area 6 · filed 2020-07-24(b)(1)-(2)

Because the complaint has no relation at all to Connecticut, it does not meet the federal venue requirements for a lawsuit in the federal District of Connecticut.

Section 1391 does not provide proper venue in Louisiana when the parties have no connection to the state and the underlying events occurred elsewhere.

Chow v. United States · filed 2020-07-24

None of the parties reside or have connections within Louisiana. The statutory requirements for proper venue have not been met. 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

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. Superintendent · filed 2020-07-24(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 where the defendants reside or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

(PC) Garrett v. Gastello · filed 2020-07-28(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 defendant(s) are located and the claim arose in San Luis Obispo County, which is in the Central District of California.

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

Garrett v. Gastello · filed 2020-07-28(b)

In this case, the defendant(s) are located and the claim arose in San Luis Obispo County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b) places venue for claims against Johnston Correctional Institution officials outside the Western District of North Carolina.

Cobbs v. Ellington · filed 2020-07-28(b)

Furthermore, as Plaintiff has previously been advised, any claim Plaintiff may have against officials or employees at Johnston Correctional Institution does not lie in this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Doc. 25 at 4-5.

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

Colacino v. Davis · filed 2020-07-28(b)

Because defendant resides in, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims occurred within, the Western District of New York, in the interest of justice, the Court will transfer this case to the Western District of New York—the proper venue for this action—where the case may proceed expeditiously.

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

Kononen v. Texas Dept of State Health Services · filed 2020-08-03(b)

Plaintiffs present no facts from which the Court could infer that the District of Oregon is the appropriate venue for their claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... The factual allegations in the Amended Complaint and exhibits filed in this action demonstrate that nearly all of the alleged events giving rise to plaintiffs’ claims took place in Texas.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence only when all defendants reside in the same state; venue may also lie where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

(PS) Mays v. State of California · filed 2020-08-04(b)

Although California “resides” in this district for purposes of venue, Oregon does not reside within the same state. ... Furthermore, plaintiff's claims, whatever they might be, appear to primarily arise out of the recent criminal charges filed against him in Oregon. Accordingly, venue properly lies in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.

Section 1391(b) places venue in a district where the defendants reside.

Smith v. Prison Officials · filed 2020-08-10(b)

Venue, therefore, ... properly lies in that district and not in this one.

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

Brown 367927 v. Just Detention International · filed 2020-08-10(b)

Under these circumstances, venue was not proper in the Eastern District of California. At this stage, venue does appear to be proper in either the Western District of Michigan or the Central District of California. Therefore, transfer to the Western District of Michigan was proper.

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

Brown 367927 v. Totten · filed 2020-08-10(b)

Under these circumstances, venue was not proper in the Eastern District of California.

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

Grandinetti v. Nale · filed 2020-08-17(b)

Moreover, Grandinetti’s claims regarding a physical examination that he received at the Saguaro Correctional Center in Arizona are properly raised in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, where venue for these claims lie.

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

Lewis-Davis v. Baltimore County Public Schools Infants & Toddlers Program · filed 2020-08-17(b)

The named defendants are all located in the State of Maryland and all events described in the Complaint occurred in Maryland. Therefore, venue is appropriate in this Court.

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

Dwyer v. CD's Machine, Inc. · filed 2020-08-18(b)

Further, venue is proper in this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) governs where a civil action may be filed; on the alleged facts, venue belonged in the Northern District of California.

(PS) Murphy, Esq. v. Hershey Chocolate Corporation · filed 2020-08-21(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). ... On the basis of the facts alleged in the complaint, the court finds that plaintiff's claim should have been filed in the Northern District of California.

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

(PC) Turner v. Williams · filed 2020-08-24(b)

In this case, the defendants are located and the claim arose in San Diego, which is in the Southern District of California.

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

Moore v. Shanahan Engineering, Inc. · filed 2020-08-25(b)

Moreover, because the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant, venue in this forum is clearly inappropriate.

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

(PC) Cole v. McFadden-Jensen · filed 2020-08-27(b)

Because the vast majority of the defendants and related events are located in and/or occurred in Monterey County, California, plaintiff's complaint should have been filed in the Northern District of California.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue where the defendants are not all residents of the forum state and the events giving rise to the claims occurred elsewhere.

Henson v. Centene Management Corporation · filed 2020-08-27(b)

In short, none of the requirements of § 1391 is satisfied in this case.

Section 1391(b) makes venue depend on the defendants’ residence or where a substantial part of the events occurred, so a plaintiff must identify where alleged violations occurred when venue is unclear.

Greer v. Stitt · filed 2020-09-10(b)

The amended complaint must clearly state where and when each alleged constitutional violation occurred, so the Court can determine whether venue is proper in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

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

J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick · filed 2020-09-11(b)(2)

Venue for this action is proper in this Court under 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.

(PC) Hill v. Perez · filed 2020-09-15(b)

In this case, the defendants are located, and the claim arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California.

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

(PC) Hill v. Beltran · filed 2020-09-15(b)

In this case, the defendants are located, and the claim arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California.

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

Penaloza v. United States of America · filed 2020-09-15(b)

Under the revised venue statute, venue in federal-question cases lies in the district in which any defendant resides or in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... In these circumstances, venue is proper only in the Western District of Virginia.

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

Mease 213302 v. Washington · filed 2020-09-15(b)

Venue for a civil action brought in federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Venue for purposes of the remaining complaint is therefore more proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan and that District is a more convenient forum for this action.

Section 1391 permits venue where the challenged actions took place and the defendants are located.

Hejeij v. Gacki · filed 2020-09-16(b), (e)

Venue is proper in this District Court because the challenged actions took place in the District and the Defendants are located in the District. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (e).

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 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Fair v. Crow · filed 2020-09-22(b)(1)-(2)

While Judge Purcell was correct in concluding that venue is proper in the Northern District of Oklahoma because that is where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” the Court is careful to note that venue is also proper in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2).

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

(PC) Bradford v. Javate · filed 2020-09-25(b)

In this case, the defendants are located and the claim arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the ... United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

ISAAC v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · filed 2020-09-25(b)(1), (b)(2)

Proper venue under subsection (1) is in the Northern District because the Florida Department of Corrections and Liberty Correctional Institution are both located in that District. ... Venue is also proper in the Northern District under subsection (2) because the alleged events occurred at Liberty Correctional Institution.

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

KURZWEIL v. AMTRAK · filed 2020-09-28(b)

Defendant is a Washington, D.C. corporation, (Def.’s Moving Br. 1), and the alleged incident occurred solely in Washington, D.C., (Compl. *2). The District of Columbia, therefore, is a proper venue.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district where none of the defendants reside, none of the underlying events occurred, and the court lacks personal jurisdiction over them.

Honorato v. Mt. Olympus Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2020-09-29(b)

Here, while Defendants do not argue that venue is improper in this District, venue here fails to meet the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 since Defendants are all residents of Wisconsin, events which are the subject of the action all occurred in Wisconsin, and the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.

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

Holloway v. The City of New York · filed 2020-10-02(b)

First, because the City of New York is located within the Eastern District of New York as well as this District, venue is proper in that district under § 1391(b)(1). Second, as the underlying events occurred in Queens, which is in Queens County, venue is proper in the Eastern District under § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) does not make venue proper in a district merely because the plaintiff filed earlier lawsuits there; defendant residence and the location of the events matter.

Stechauner, Matthew v. Toney, Eric · filed 2020-10-07(b)

But these points aren’t relevant to whether venue is proper in this district under § 1391(b). ... So none of the defendants in Stechauner’s complaint, as amended, resides in this district. ... In sum, Stechauner’s proposed amendments don’t solve the venue problem with his complaint.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper when none of its three categories applies to the district.

Gregory v. Harris · filed 2020-10-07(b)

Here, plaintiff has failed to establish that this case falls within any of the categories set forth in § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) limits venue in a civil action to a district tied to a defendant’s residence, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, or, when no other district is available, a defendant’s location.

Holbrook v. State of Michigan · filed 2020-10-07(b)

Thus, venue is not proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which provides that civil suits may only be brought in the judicial district where (1) any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the claim may otherwise be brought.

Section 1391 does not permit venue in a district where the defendant does not reside, the events giving rise to the claim did not occur, and the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction.

Zaldivar v. TransUnion Inc · filed 2020-09-29(b), (c)(2)

However, PHEAA does not reside in Louisiana. Additionally, the events giving rise to this claim did not occur in Louisiana, and PHEAA is not subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. ... Therefore, the Court concludes that this is an improper venue for Plaintiff's claims against PHEAA.

Section 1391(e)(1) does not permit a court to hear a case in an otherwise improper venue merely to resolve it more quickly.

Mvp Sports, Inc. v. Cissna · filed 2020-09-30(e)(1)

Moreover, and in any event, section 1391(e) does not authorize courts to hear cases in an otherwise improper venue if doing so could potentially lead to an expedient resolution of the case.

Prior lawsuits in a district and alleged retaliation in seeking a venue change do not establish proper venue under § 1391(b).

Stechauner v. Knezevic · filed 2020-10-07(b)

He says that I should keep his case here because he has filed prior lawsuits in this court and because defendants are retaliating against him by trying to change venue. But these points aren’t relevant to whether venue is proper in this district under § 1391(b).

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

(PC) Harris v. Maveri · filed 2020-10-14(b)

In this case, the defendants are located in and the claim arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the Northern District.

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

(PS) Njokom v. El Camino Community College District · filed 2020-10-14(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). ... Therefore, plaintiffs claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

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

Njokom v. El Camino Community College District · filed 2020-10-14(b)

In this case, the complaint states that both the plaintiff and defendant reside in Los Angeles, California (ECF No. 1 at 12) and all incidents referenced in the complaint appear to have taken place within Los Angeles County. Both the city of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County are located within the Central District of California, Western Division. Therefore, plaintiffs claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

Section 1391(b) places a civil action in the district where the defendants are located and the claim arose.

Harris v. Mayeri · filed 2020-10-14(b)

In this case, the defendants are located in and the claim arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the Northern District.

Section 1391(b) requires a civil action to be filed in a proper venue, such as the district where the defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Botts v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2020-10-23(b)

In this case, the defendant does not reside in this district and that the claims arose in Los Angeles County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district where no defendant is alleged to reside and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Best v. Deshader · filed 2020-10-28(b)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any of the defendants – who are all identified as New Jersey police officers ‒ resides in this judicial district, or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims arose in this judicial district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b).

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

Jones v. Jury · filed 2020-10-19(b)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district1 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).

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 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Edwards v. Michigan State University · filed 2020-10-29(b)(1)–(2)

The Court concludes that venue is proper in the Western District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1)–(2).

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Hettinga v. Garcia · filed 2020-11-03(b)(1), (b)(2)

The district court properly dismissed the remaining defendants because Hettinga failed to establish that any defendant resides in the Central District of California or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to her claims occurred there.

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

Headman v. Nelson · filed 2020-11-05(b)

Thus, Mr. Headman has failed to demonstrate the requirements for venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) are met in any other district.

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

Martin v. Tanner · filed 2020-11-05(b)

The proper venue for civil actions in which jurisdiction is not based on diversity of citizenship is the judicial district where: (1) any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property in question is situated; or (3) any defendant may be found if there is no other district in which plaintiff may bring the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Venue, therefore, is not proper in this district.

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

Martin 724371 v. Tanner · filed 2020-11-05(b)

The Defendants are located in Muskegon County and the events giving rise to this action arose in Muskegon County. ... Venue, therefore, is not proper in this district.

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.

Duncan v. Miramar Animal Clinic · filed 2020-11-10(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, venue for this action lies in the District of Puerto Rico. See § 1391(b)(1), (2).

Section 1391(b) makes the district where the relevant events occurred the proper venue for claims arising from those events.

Cromartie v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety of Prisions · filed 2020-11-12(b)

As such, this Court is not the proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Locklear-Jones arising from events that occurred at Scotland C.I. See generally 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.

Michelson v. Wellpath · filed 2020-11-12(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this jurisdiction because Plaintiff resides here, Defendant Goen appears to reside here, and the incidents at issue allegedly occurred here.

Under § 1391, an entity resides where it is subject to personal jurisdiction, and venue is improper where the defendants do not reside and the events giving rise to the claims occurred elsewhere.

NEWMAN v. NORTH CAROLINA INSURANCE UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION / NORTH CAROLINA JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION · filed 2020-11-13(b), (c)(2)

They do not reside in New Jersey and the events giving rise to Ms. Newman’s claims occurred in North Carolina making this Court the improper venue for this action.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district tied to a defendant’s residence or to a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim.

Dabney v. Washington · filed 2020-12-02(b)

The determination of the proper venue for a civil action in federal court is generally governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Relevant here, the statute provides that a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides; or (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. ... Because there is no apparent basis for venue to lie in this district, but there are facts in the complaint suggesting that venue would be proper in the Western District, the Court finds that the interests of justice would be served by transferring the case to the district where it should have been filed in the first instance.

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in Hawaii for claims arising from confinement in a Texas prison; those claims must be brought in the Northern District of Texas.

Robertson v. T.D.C. J. · filed 2020-12-09(b)

Thus, to the extent Robertson attempts to challenge his current conditions of confinement, the District of Hawaii is not the proper venue for those claims. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1406; Dermendziev v. Washington, 624 F. App’x 454, 455 (9th Cir. 2015). Any such claims must be raised, if at all, in the Northern District of Texas.

Section 1391(b)(1)–(2) permits venue 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.

Windom v. Tennessee Department of Corrections · filed 2020-12-09(b)(1)–(2)

Because all Defendants to the current action are alleged to reside in Tennessee, venue is proper in any district where one of them resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)–(2).

Section 1391 does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and no relevant events occurred when another district is available.

Elfers v. Gonzalez · filed 2020-12-10(b)

The general federal venue law does not let him bring his case here, because no defendant lives in Delaware, no relevant events happened in Delaware, and many relevant events happened in the Northern District of Illinois.

Section 1391(b) requires a statutory basis for venue; a plaintiff’s belief that a district is proper cannot supply one when the defendants and relevant events are elsewhere.

Drake v. Travelers Commerical Insurance Co. · filed 2020-12-10(b)

Despite Plaintiff’s contentions to the contrary: ... (iii) Plaintiff’s belief that this is a proper venue to assert his claims cannot override federal law saying otherwise, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district with no sufficient connection to the defendants or the events giving rise to the claims.

Sall v. George · filed 2020-12-14(b)

Under this rubric, the District of Massachusetts is not the proper venue for this action.