28 U.S.C. § 1391

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

Bibb v. Malek and Malek Attys at Law · filed 2020-12-15(b)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that all remaining defendants reside within the State of New York, or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred within this judicial district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b).

Section 1391 permits venue where the defendant does business and is subject to personal jurisdiction, regardless of a contractual forum selection clause.

MOORE v. WUXI APPTEC, INC. · filed 2020-12-15(a)-(c)

The court must first determine whether venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)-(c) without respect to any contractual forum selection clause. See Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 56 (2013). Because it is undisputed that defendant does business within and is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, venue is properly laid here.

Section 1391(b) makes venue proper in the district where the events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred.

Bessert v. Langlade County · filed 2020-12-16(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is appropriate because the events of this case took place in Langdale County, which is in the Green Bay Division of the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the remaining defendants reside and the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Daker v. Commissioner Homer Bryson · filed 2020-12-17(b)

As a general matter, cases arising under federal law may be brought only in a district where: (1) the defendant resides, (2) a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim took place, or (3) the defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction for the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... The MK-9 incident took place in the Southern District, and the GSP officials who allegedly used MK-9 on Daker reside there. Therefore, the district court’s choice to transfer the case to the Southern District was no abuse of discretion.

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

United States v. E.R.R. LLC · filed 2020-12-17(b)

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 1017(b) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2717(b), and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because it is the judicial district in which Defendants are located and in which the discharge and the resulting response actions occurred.

Section 1391 places venue for a nondiversity civil rights action in a district where the defendant resides or the claim arose.

Smith v. International Solutions, Inc.CASE TRANSFERRED TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TX, FORT WORTH DIV · filed 2020-12-22

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. ... As Tarrant County is located in the Northern District of Texas, venue in the Eastern District of Texas is not proper.

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

Liebert v. Jones · filed 2020-12-23(b)

The Court finds venue improper in this District as no Defendant resides here, no Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction here, and “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” did not occur here. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Best Western International Incorporated v. 764 4th Avenue Associates LLC · filed 2020-12-10(b)

Here, the action could have originally been brought in the Eastern District of New York because 4th Avenue resides in the state in which the district is located and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to BWII’s claims arose out of that district.

Section 1391 makes venue improper where the defendant does not reside, the events giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere, and another district is available.

RODRIGUEZ-RIVERA v. LOTO GROUP, LLC · filed 2020-12-16(b)(1)-(3), (c)(2)

Having concluded that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant, and with the alleged incident having occurred in Pennsylvania, the Court finds venue is improper in this District.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in California when the claims concern property and conduct in Florida and no defendant is shown to have a relevant presence in California.

Barth v. Mabry Carlton Ranch, Inc · filed 2020-12-23(b)

Plaintiff’s claims relate to property in Florida and conduct that took place in Florida, and therefore venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue for ADA and PHRA claims where the defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

KANE v. SENIOR LIFE · filed 2020-12-16(b)(1)–(2)

Venue is not proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for Kane’s ADA and PHRA claims, contained in Counts IV through XII of the complaint.

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

Kane v. PACE Healthcare Transportation · filed 2020-12-16(b)(1)–(2)

Venue is not proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for Kane’s ADA and PHRA claims, contained in Counts IV through XII of the complaint. Under § 1391(b), those claims are properly venued in any district where the defendant resides or where a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.”

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

Beck v. Barr · filed 2020-12-30(b)

Nor is this district the proper venue for adjudication of any claim against the Minnesota defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (designating proper venue as the location where defendants are or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and no claim-related events occurred when another district is available.

(PS)Crane v. Juhasz · filed 2021-01-04(b)

In any event, this does not suggest a basis for venue here under Section 1391(b) as none of the Defendants reside here, none of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim occurred in the Northern District of California, and finally, there is a district—the Eastern District—wherein Plaintiff could have brought her claims.

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

Chirse v. Edgar · filed 2021-01-04(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) or (2).

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.

Chirse v. Bosto · filed 2021-01-04(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) permit venue based on defendants’ residence or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Chirse v. Southport Medical Dept. · filed 2021-01-05(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) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Fenton v. Annucci · filed 2021-01-07(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 her 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 district where no defendant resides and no events giving rise to the claims occurred.

McMillian v. Miller · filed 2021-01-08(b)

Applying this standard, the Court notes that Plaintiff is incarcerated at the Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Washington County, and Plaintiff has not alleged that any Defendant resides in this district or that any events giving rise to his claims occurred here. This district is not the proper venue for this action.

Section 1391(b)(1)-(2) 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.

DiResta v. Biz2Credit Inc. · filed 2021-01-11(b)(1)-(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2), venue is therefore proper in the Southern District of New York.

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

Chirse v. Pauselius · filed 2021-01-11(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) governs where a civil action may be brought, including an action against a county.

Winningham v. Broken Arrow, City of · filed 2021-01-11(b)

More importantly, this court is not the proper venue for an action against Tulsa County, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), and Plaintiff has made no allegations against Tulsa County in any event.

Section 1391(b) determines venue by reference to where defendants reside or where the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

(PC) Silva v. Department of State Hospitals · filed 2021-01-14(b)

According to the Complaint, the events giving rise to the cause of action and/or the defendants reside in Luis Obispo County, which is within the venue of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) see also Ziegler v. Indian River County, 64 F.3d 470, 474 (9th Cir. 1995) (reviewing federal court jurisdiction and venue in a § 1983 action). The Court thus transfers this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the forum state, or where a substantial part of the relevant events or property is located.

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SE · filed 2021-01-14(b)(1), (b)(2)

The allegations in U.S. Bank’s Complaint confirm that venue is proper under either provision. The Court overrules the Janelles’ objection to venue.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district where neither the sole defendant resides nor the events giving rise to the action occurred when another proper district is available.

Robinson v. Sherrod · filed 2021-01-13(b)

Because the defendant is located in the Western District and the events giving rise to this action arose there as well, venue is not proper in this district.

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

Chirse v. Piccolo · filed 2021-01-14(b)(1), (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 in the district where the lease was entered into and the property it concerns is located.

LPC Property Management, LLC v. Felton · filed 2021-01-25(b)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as the Lease Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants was entered into at and involves real property located at NSFIH, which is in this district.

Section 1391(b)(1)–(2) governs whether venue is proper in a federal district.

Shepard v. Department of Justice · filed 2021-01-26(b)(1)–(2)

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

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

Romero v. Wolf · filed 2021-01-26

But venue is nonetheless proper here under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because at least one Respondent (the Acting Director of the San Francisco Field Office) is located in this District, and because Petitioner alleges that he was before the Immigration Court in this District and that a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claims took place in this District: he was arrested and placed in detention by the San Francisco ICE Field Office, his removal proceedings and venue took place in San Francisco Immigration Court and a San Francisco IJ found he was subject to mandatory detention.

Section 1391(b) provides no basis for venue in a district where the relevant defendants are located elsewhere and the claims arose elsewhere.

WILLIAMS v. CAPOZZA · filed 2021-01-28(b)

Accordingly, because there is no apparent basis for venue for these claims in this district, and because Defendants Capozza and John Doe 3 are located there, the Court will transfer Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

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

Johnson v. Nagy · filed 2021-01-29(b)

In these circumstances, venue is proper only in the Eastern District.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district when none of its specified grounds for venue applies.

Whitener v. State of Tennessee · filed 2021-02-02(b)(1)-(3)

Accordingly, venue is not appropriate in this Court for Plaintiff’s claims against PCJC. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(3).

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

(PC)Wells v. Newsom · filed 2021-02-03(b)

Plaintiff’s FAC, filed November 18, 2020, only names defendants located at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”). ... Therefore, venue in this court – the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division ... is appropriate.

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.

(PC) Cunningham v. Pabon · filed 2021-02-04(b)

In this case, Defendants do not reside in this district and the claim arose in San Bernardino County, which is in the Central District. Therefore, Plaintiff’s action should have been filed in the Central District.

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 or omissions giving rise to the claims is alleged to have occurred.

Estate of Edward R. McCardle Sr. v. Purdue Pharma · filed 2021-02-10(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Schultz does not allege that the defendant resides in this judicial district or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district, this Court is not a proper venue for this action under § 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Ettiene-Modeste v. Hartford Police Department · filed 2021-02-10(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 district where no defendant resides, no substantial part of the events occurred, and another district is available.

ONISHI v. CHAPLEAU · filed 2021-02-19(b)

The statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), lists three scenarios under which venue is proper. None of them is present here. ... Because there is a district in which the action may be brought, venue is not proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3). The action will therefore be dismissed for improper venue.

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.

McDonald v. Citibank N.A. · filed 2021-02-05(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that all of the defendants reside in New York 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 where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Harris v. Tonkin · filed 2021-02-16(b)(1), (b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, when another district is available.

Gandolfo v. City of Medford and its Police Department · filed 2021-02-16(b)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this judicial district or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims arose in this judicial district, this Court is not a proper venue for Plaintiff’s § 1983 and state-law claims under § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) 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.

Marshall v. Bright · filed 2021-02-17(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)-(2) does not permit venue in a district where neither a defendant’s residence nor a substantial part of the underlying events is alleged.

Gullas v. Chhaya Community Development Corporation · filed 2021-02-18(b)(1)-(2)

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

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

Samura v. Figueroa · filed 2021-03-02(b)

The underlying events occurred in Staten Island, New York, where Defendants appear to reside. Staten Island is located in Richmond County, which falls within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Sobocienski v. Haeker · filed 2021-03-03(b)

Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the District of Nevada is not the proper venue for this action. None of the defendants are residents of Nevada, none of the events giving rise to the claim took place in Nevada, and there is another district in which the action could be filed.

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

Kimner v. Berkeley County South Carolina · filed 2021-03-04(b)

Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts establishing that this Court is the proper venue for this action. First, as previously mentioned, Berkeley County resides in South Carolina, not in the Northern District of California. See Compl. at 2. Second, from the facts in the record, it appears that most, if not all, of the “events or omissions giving rise to” Ms. Kimner’s claim occurred exclusively in South Carolina. 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Finally, as discussed above, Berkeley County is not subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district. As such, venue with this Court is improper.

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

Rao v. Thuo · filed 2021-03-16(b)

First, this action was filed in the wrong venue. Because all Defendants are alleged to be residents of Massachusetts and the motor vehicle accident is alleged to have occurred in Massachusetts, venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts, not the Eastern District of New York.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state, where a substantial part of the events or property is located, or, if no other district is available, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Punchall v. US Subsidiary Incorporated District of New Mexico · filed 2021-03-18(b)

The Court finds that venue is not proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). First, venue is improper under Section 1391(b)(1) because, although it appears up to two defendants may reside in the District of Arizona, the remainder of the named Defendants reside in the District of New Mexico. Second, venue is improper in Arizona under Section 1391(b)(2) because the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims took place in New Mexico, and the property at issue is located in New Mexico. Finally, Section 1391(b)(3) does not apply because, had Plaintiff complied with the vexatious litigant restrictions which apply to him in the District of New Mexico, this case could have been brought in that district.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper when the case fits none of its three grounds for bringing a civil action in the district.

Stidhum v. Access Health · filed 2021-03-18(b)

For many of the same reasons discussed above with respect to personal jurisdiction, this case falls into none of these three categories. As to the first category, there is only one defendant in this action, and it is not a resident of Missouri. As to the second category, no substantial part of the events or omissions that gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Eastern District of Missouri; they all occurred in Texas. As to the third category, this Court has already found that that the sole defendant in this case is not subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to this cause of action.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside or substantial events occurred; the plaintiff’s residence and parole restrictions do not determine proper venue.

(PC) Gleason v. Lynch · filed 2021-03-19(b)

The Eastern District of California is the only proper venue for this case. Plaintiff’s claim arose at California State Prison, Sacramento, where each of the defendants worked and presumably reside. Plaintiff’s residence (or parole restrictions) is irrelevant in determining proper venue. Thus, plaintiff’s motion to change venue (ECF No. 16) is denied.

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

Donahoo 513568 v. Woodards · filed 2021-03-19(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) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides, no substantial part of the events occurred, and the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

MMT INC v. HYDRO INTERNATIONAL INC · filed 2021-03-23(b)

The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendants, so venue is not proper here under 28 U.S.C. §1391.

Section 1391(b) makes the district where the defendants are located and the claim arose a proper venue.

(PC) Hill v. Camacho · filed 2021-03-29(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 based on defendants’ residence, substantial events or property in the district, or, if no other district qualifies, personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company v. International Paper Company · filed 2021-03-30(b)

With regard to §1391(b)(1), the finds it is inapplicable because not all defendants reside in Tennessee. ... Next, the Court looks to § 1391(b)(2) and finds it is equally inapplicable because the Western District of Tennessee is not a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred nor is a substantial part of the property subject to the action situated there. Thus, the Court looks to the final “catch all” provision of § 1391(b)(3) when (b)(1) and (b)(2) are not applicable – where there is no other district and the defendants are subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. Again, IP fails because there is another jurisdiction (i.e. the Southern District of Alabama) and IP has not demonstrated that Dailey and JRD Contracting were subject to the personal jurisdiction and venue of the Western District of Tennessee.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where the defendant companies have their principal places of business.

Ridenti v. Google LLC · filed 2021-03-30(b)

Plaintiffs could have brought this action in the Northern District of California, as defendants are limited liability companies with their principal places of business within that district. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1404(a).

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) govern venue based on where defendants reside and where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Rioux v. United States of America · filed 2021-03-26(b)(1), (2)

Because all of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in New Hampshire, and most of the defendants either reside, are found, have an agent, or transact their affairs in that state, venue does not appear to be proper in this court under § 1391(b)(1), (2), or 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a).

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

Thomas v. United States of America · filed 2021-03-31(b)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides that a civil action may be brought in a judicial district where any defendant resides or a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. Based on a review of the complaint, the District of Kansas is not a proper venue for this action because no defendant resides in the District of Kansas, nor did any of the events giving rise to the claim occur in the District of Kansas.

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

Slayton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections · filed 2021-04-12(b)

A civil action may be filed in: (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all the defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Furthermore, a substantial part of the events giving rise to Slayton’s claims occurred in Florida. ... The proper venue for this action, therefore, is the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

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.

Preston v. Russell · filed 2021-04-12(b)

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)(1) and (2) permit venue based on where defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred.

Sheppard v. Leuze · filed 2021-04-09(b)(1)-(2)

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

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

Kruppenbacher v. Annucci · filed 2021-04-14(b)

As that county is within the Northern District of New York, see28 U.S.C. § 112(a), this Court is not the proper venue to consider any claims arising out of Plaintiff’s current incarceration, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (“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] a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred[.]”).

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) Miranda v. Falcon · filed 2021-04-21(b)

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

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district where the defendants do not all reside and the events giving rise to the claims did not occur.

Kaul v. Murphy · filed 2021-04-23(b)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Under this statute, venue in this District is improper, because all Defendants do not reside here, and the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims clearly occurred in New Jersey.

Section 1391(b) does not make Maine a proper venue when the defendants live in New Jersey and all events giving rise to the claims occurred there.

BELSKIS v. ORTIZ · filed 2021-04-26(b)

Given that the District of Maine presumptively lacks personal jurisdiction over these New Jersey Defendants (Mr. Belskis has not made any showing contrarywise), see, e.g., Kinslow v. Pullara, 538 F.3d 687, 691 (7th Cir. 2008), and given that Maine is not the appropriate venue for this civil action in any event, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), Defendants’ motions are hereby GRANTED.

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

Cannell v. Denver Sheriff Department · filed 2021-04-29(b)

Under this rubric, the District of Massachusetts is not the proper venue for this action. Cannell’s complaint concerns alleged misconduct by three defendants in Colorado. The alleged misconduct giving rise to Cannell’s claims occurred in Colorado. Cannell’s claims do not have sufficient, if any, connection for the District of Massachusetts for venue to lie here.

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

Jaye v. Knuckles, Komosinski & Manfro, LLP · filed 2021-05-05(b)

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

Section 1391(b) does not make a plaintiff’s residence or place of business a basis for venue.

SHOKIRJONIY v. THE CITY OF CLINTON TOWNSHIP · filed 2021-05-07(b)

However, a plaintiff’s residence or where a plaintiff transacts business has no bearing on where venue is appropriate.

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.

Dolan v. Baker · filed 2021-05-07(b)

Because Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants reside outside this District and that all of the events or omissions giving rise to his claim arose outside this District, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b).

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

Anderson v. Rigner · filed 2021-05-10(b)

The same is true of the seven matters now before the Court that have been brought by Anderson in this District. Once more, each of the defendants named to these seven actions are alleged to reside in Illinois. Once more, none of the events or occurrences at issue in these seven actions is alleged to have occurred in Minnesota. These matters should not have been filed in this District.

Section 1391(b)(1)-(2) governs where a civil action may be brought based on defendants’ residence or the events giving rise to the claim.

Brown v. Harris · filed 2021-05-12(b)(1)-(2)

Brown, a Garland County, Arkansas resident, filed this pro se § 1983 lawsuit challenging eviction and seizure of property also located in Garland County. Venue is proper in the Western District of Arkansas; and the interests of justice would best be served by transferring this case there. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where the defendants reside and the events at issue occurred.

Mease 213302 v. Washington · filed 2021-05-13(b)

He alleges no error—much less palpable error—in the decision of the Eastern District to dismiss the only three Defendants who resided in that district and to transfer venue to this Court, where all the remaining Defendants reside and where the events in issue occurred. As a result, venue is proper in this Court and the interests of justice are served by continuing venue in this district.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district with substantial connections to the defendant and the dispute.

Sunlight Logistics, Inc. v. County Hall Insurance Company, Inc. · filed 2021-05-14(b)

Moreover, Sunlight entered into the policy in Minnesota and the policy contains several Minnesota-specific endorsements. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper here.

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

Cannell v. Denver Sheriff Department · filed 2021-05-17(b)

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

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

Tieszen v. Bastian · filed 2021-05-18(b)

A civil action may be brought in U.S. District Court in: (1) a district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a 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) if there's no district in which an action may otherwise be brought, any district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). It's apparent that (1) and (2) are unsatisfied here: the defendants are located in South Dakota, as was the alleged conspiracy. And there is no reason that venue wouldn't lie in South Dakota, so (3) doesn't help either.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; the plaintiffs’ residence does not determine venue.

Yigal v. Cole · filed 2021-05-20(b)

Venue is appropriate where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” or where any defendant resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiffs’ place of residence is irrelevant for purposes of determining venue.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides when all defendants reside in the same state.

Roberts v. Paragon Metals LLC · filed 2021-05-20(b)(1)

Rather, the complaint clearly shows that Defendant is a resident of, and therefore venue is proper in, the Western District of Michigan.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where the defendants reside.

Bank v. New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets · filed 2021-05-20(b)(1)

Accordingly, the court finds that venue in the Northern District would be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because defendants are residents of the Northern District of New York.

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.

Thompson v. Brown · filed 2021-05-21(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 substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, or where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state.

Rodriguez v. United States of America · filed 2021-05-21(b)(1), (b)(2)

The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims about the conditions of his confinement in the ECCF have taken place outside this judicial district, in New Jersey, and therefore venue for such claims is not proper here under § 1391(b)(2). ... Venue for those claims is not proper in this district under § 1391(b)(1) because Plaintiff does not allege that all defendants are residents of New York, where this judicial district is located.

Section 1391(b) permits venue for a § 1983 claim 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.

Carmona v. State of NC · filed 2021-05-26(b)

Therefore, under Section 1391, this claim may be heard, if ... at all, in a venue where all the defendants reside, or in the venue where the issue substantially arose, which here is the Middle District of North Carolina.

Section 1391 permits this suit to be brought in the district where its sole corporate defendant is headquartered and subject to personal jurisdiction.

EAST COAST STORAGE EQUIPMENT CO., INC. v. ZF TRANSMISSIONS GRAY COURT, LLC · filed 2021-05-26

Therefore, it is subject to general personal jurisdiction in that state, and this action could have been brought in the District of South Carolina. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2-3) (explaining 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, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or ... if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action”).

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.

McKreith v. Sutton · filed 2021-05-26(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) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides when all defendants reside in the same state, or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Salaam v. City of New York · filed 2021-05-27(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, it appears that this Court and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York are both proper venues for this action. See § 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Khouanmany v. Carvajal · filed 2021-05-28(b)

This claim properly should be filed in the district where the incident report was issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (explaining that venue lies where defendants reside or where the events giving rise to the claim took place).

Section 1391 permits venue in the District of Delaware when both defendants are incorporated there and subject to personal jurisdiction there.

Massie v. General Motors Company · filed 2021-05-26(b)(1), (c)(2)

Therefore, Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in Delaware and venue in the District of Delaware is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c), and that district is one where the action “could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state.

Moncion v. The City of New York NYPD · filed 2021-06-01(b)(1)

As the City of New York is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, venue is proper here under § 1391(b)(1).

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

Castro v. Santwier · filed 2021-06-02(b)

It is possible that venue would be proper in the Southern District of California as well if, for example, Plaintiff can allege that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in either San Diego or Imperial County; but, without such allegations, Plaintiff’s case cannot proceed here.

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.

Burnett v. Lane · filed 2021-06-03(b)

Because all parties are located in the Western District and plaintiff alleges that all events giving rise to this action took place in the Western District, venue is not proper here in the Eastern District.

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

Crichlow v. New York State DOCCS · filed 2021-06-04(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) or (2).

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

Burnett v. Lane · filed 2021-06-07(b)

Defendant resides in Ionia County, Michigan for purposes of the complaint (as does Plaintiff) and the events giving rise to the complaint occurred there. ... Venue is therefore proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, not this Court.

Venue under § 1391(b) is improper in a district where none of the parties reside and no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Bussie v. Yellen · filed 2021-06-09(b)

But even if plaintiff somehow could, the action would not properly belong in this district where none of the parties reside and where no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiffs claim(s) occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue based on defendants’ residences only when all defendants reside in the state containing the district.

Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox · filed 2021-06-09(b)(1)

Because Plaintiff’s allegations show that, for example, some of the individual defendants reside outside New York, party-based venue does not lie in this district under section 1331(b)(1), which requires that all defendants reside in the State in which the district is located.

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) Appleby v. CDCR · filed 2021-06-10(b)

In this case, the defendants are located and the claim 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) does not provide venue in a district where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events or omissions occurred.

Jaye v. United States · filed 2021-06-11(b)

None of the Defendants nor the Plaintiff is located in Rhode Island, nor do any of them appear to have a connection to Rhode Island. ... Plaintiff does not allege that any events or omissions occurred in this judicial district.

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

(PC) Clay v. Naranjo · filed 2021-06-14(b)(2)

In this case, the claim 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) permits venue in a district where the defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

JACOBOWITZ v. RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION · filed 2021-06-16(b)

There is no dispute that this case could have been brought in the Northern District of Texas, nor could there be. Defendant Range Resources is headquartered in Texas, Individual Defendants Ventura, Succhi, and Manny all reside and work, or previously worked, in the Fort Worth, Texas area. ... For these reasons, and given the nature of the allegations in the Complaint, we find that this case could have been brought in the proposed transferee forum, the Northern District of Texas.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits a civil action in a district where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state.

Chan v. iSpot, Inc. · filed 2021-06-17(b)(1)

Venue is proper in that district for the same reason. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (“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.”).

Section 1391(b) makes the location of the events giving rise to a claim relevant to whether venue is proper.

Henderson v. Mercer · filed 2021-06-18(b)

Venue as to Plaintiff’s ... claims arising from his Florida incarceration is not proper in this district, however. Those claims involve events that appear to have occurred at the Suwannee Correctional Institution, which is located in Suwannee County, Florida. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides, subject to its state residency condition, or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

(PC) Sconce v. Central District Court of California · filed 2021-06-21(b)

In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district, and plaintiff’s claims arose in Los Angeles County, which is in the Central District of California. ... Thus, this action should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b)(1) does not permit venue in a district when the defendants do not reside in its state.

Kaul v. Murphy · filed 2021-06-21(b)(1)

Venue is not proper under § 1391(b)(1) because all defendants do not reside in New York.

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

Jenkins v. Washington · filed 2021-06-22(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 the facts of the complaint suggest 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) identifies proper venue based on a defendant’s residence or a substantial part of the events or omissions, with a personal-jurisdiction fallback when no other district is available.

Searcy v. Drug Enforcement AgencyDo not docket in this case. Case transferred to (Houston Division).< · filed 2021-06-24(b)

In this case, neither the defendants nor the events asserted by the plaintiff have a connection to the Galveston Division. Therefore, the complaint was not properly filed here.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where one defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state.

Courthouse News Service v. Schaefer · filed 2021-06-24(b)(1)

Because joinder was permissible here, the Clerks’ venue challenge also fails. A federal statute and the district court’s local rules establish that venue is appropriate in cases with multiple defendants in a division where at least one defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1); E.D. Va. Loc. R. Civ. P. 3(C). These conditions are met here.

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

BROWN v. PHOEBE PUTNEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL · filed 2021-06-24(b)

Therefore, the Middle District of Georgia is the proper venue for the remaining claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (venue); 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (district courts may dismiss or transfer cases suffering venue defects); see also, 28 U.S.C. § 90(b) (defining Middle District of Georgia).

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence only if all defendants reside in the state where the district is located.

The One Technologies, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. · filed 2021-06-29(b)(1)

As a result, venue over this action is clearly improper under Section 1391(b)(1), since Plaintiff has failed to allege that “all defendants” are residents of New York.

Section 1391(b) supported transferring the action out of Michigan when the defendants and alleged acts were in Puerto Rico.

Lugo v. VPH Motor Corp. d/b/a Triangle Chrysler Fiat de Ponce · filed 2021-06-29(b)

The Complaint alleges all the named-Defendants also reside in Puerto Rico and that the wrongful acts alleged occurred in Puerto Rico. The Court transfers the case to the District of Puerto Rico, finding that the interest of justice so requires.

Section 1391 determines whether a federal district is a proper venue even when the parties dispute a contractual forum selection clause.

Living Vehicle, Inc. v. Aluminum Trailer Company The · filed 2021-07-01

This federal district is proper venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The question is whether the parties preferred another venue—a state venue—by contract.

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

Alexander v. Mead · filed 2021-07-06(b)

Going through the venue prongs demonstrates that Plaintiff is out of luck. First, nothing in her pleadings suggests that any named Defendant — let alone all — resides in Washington. See Am. Compl., ¶¶ 18, 21, 24–32. Second, her recitation of the underlying events contains no mention of the nation’s capital. Id., ¶¶ 7–14, 18–36. Finally, this is not a situation in which there are no other venues where this action might otherwise be brought. Dismissal is thus warranted.

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

Abou-Ramadan v. Kataoka · filed 2021-07-08(b)

Civil actions in federal court may be brought, with limited exceptions, only in (1) the judicial district where defendants reside or (2) in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... This case has no connection to the Western District of Washington beyond Plaintiff’s residence. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 1, 12, 17, 18.) Therefore, venue is not proper in this district.

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

Vodicka v. Ermatinger · filed 2021-07-12(b)

Vodicka has not briefed this issue, and upon its own review, the Court finds no basis for venue in any out-of-state district or in the Southern District of Texas. Specifically, these proposed forums are not where “any defendant resides” or where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [Vodicka’s] claim occurred[.]”

Section 1391(b) permits a civil action in a district where all defendants reside in the same state, where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or, if neither applies, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Hamilton v. Droddy · filed 2021-07-13(b)

A civil action may be brought only in: (1) a judicial district where any Defendant resides, if all Defendants reside in the state in which the District Court is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided by this section, any judicial district in which any Defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the action brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Here, all of the Defendants do not reside in Ohio. In fact, only the Mahoning County Sheriff is a resident of Ohio and the Complaint does not include any claims against him. All of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Louisiana, not the Northern District of Ohio. The proper venue for this action is the Western District of Louisiana.

Section 1391(b) did not provide venue in the Eastern District of California for claims arising in San Bernardino County.

(PC) Valles v. CDCR · filed 2021-07-15(b)

Even if Plaintiff were able to state a claim for relief against specifically identified individuals, venue would not be proper in this court because the claims arose in San Bernardino County, which is in the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (venue statute).

Section 1391(b) requires a basis for venue in the district, such as the defendant’s residence or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

MNG 2005, Inc. v. G2 Web Services, LLC · filed 2021-07-16(b)

MNG fails to allege that venue is proper in this Court.

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.

In re: Michael Lyon · filed 2021-07-19(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Lyon does not allege that a 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) or (2).

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

Gardner v. Corizon Health Inc. · filed 2021-07-20(b)

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)(2) permits venue in a district with substantial factual ties to the dispute, including where the underlying conduct occurred.

MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY v. HOLY FAMILY INSTITUTE · filed 2021-07-20(b)(2)

Here, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, venue is proper because the insurance broker who facilitated the procurement of the insurance policies resides within this District, and three of the six Underlying Actions are in Pennsylvania state courts within this District. Likewise, venue is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania because Holy Family resides there, the alleged abuse occurred there, and three of the six Underlying Actions are in Pennsylvania state courts within the Western District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Barth v. Mabry Carlton Ranch, Inc. · filed 2021-07-28(b)(1), (b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) allow 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.

Polanco v. Rich · filed 2021-07-28(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 meet its residence rule, a substantial part of the events occurred, or no other qualifying district is available.

Kaul, MD v. Boston Partners, Inc · filed 2021-07-30(b)

Here, venue is improper under § 1391(b)(1) because not all defendants reside in Massachusetts. ... Finally, venue is improper under § 1391(b)(3) because the case could be brought in another judicial district, namely the District of New Jersey.

Section 1391(b) does not provide venue in the Eastern District of Tennessee for claims against defendants whose identified business location is in another judicial district.

Tucker v. Parris · filed 2021-08-04(b)

Accordingly, venue is not appropriate in this Court for Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants.

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

Gaither v. Triplett · filed 2021-08-17(b)

As none of the Defendants reside in the State of Ohio and there are no allegations suggesting any of the events giving rise to the claims in this action occurred in Ohio, this Court is not the proper venue to assert these claims.

Section 1391(b)(1)–(2) permits venue based on defendants’ residence or a substantial connection between the district and the events or property at issue.

Buttacavoli v. Worth Ross Management Company Incorporated · filed 2021-08-25(b)(1)–(2)

The subject property, the condo formerly owned by Plaintiff, is also outside of the District of Arizona. Candlewyck has therefore established that the District of Arizona is not a proper venue for this action. As such, the Complaint is subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3).

Section 1391 permits venue where the defendant resides or where the disputed actions took place.

Focke v. Allen · filed 2021-08-27

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant resides in Colorado, is a citizen of Colorado, and the disputed actions took place in Colorado.

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

Ecckles v. M.D.O.C. · filed 2021-08-30(b)

Defendants reside in Ingham County and Montcalm County, Michigan for purposes of the present complaint and the events giving rise to the complaint occurred in those counties. Both of those counties are located in the Western District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2). Venue is therefore proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, not this Court.

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.

Ecckles 298965, Jr. v. Michigan Department of Corrections al · filed 2021-08-30(b)

Defendants reside in Ingham County and Montcalm County, Michigan for purposes of the present complaint and the events giving rise to the complaint occurred in those counties. Both of those counties are located in the Western District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2). Venue is therefore proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, not this Court.

Section 1391(b)(1)–(2) permits venue based on defendants’ residence or a substantial connection between the district and the events giving rise to the claim.

Glime v. Susquehanna Valley Pre-Owned Sales & Service · filed 2021-08-31(b)(1)–(2)

Because neither Defendant resides in this District, and Glime has alleged no facts that connect any of his claims to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a federal district merely because the plaintiffs live there and could have filed the suit in state court there.

De La Rosa v. Gardner Global Logistics · filed 2021-09-01(b)

The Court finds that the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division is not a federal district or division where this case might have been brought. See § 1391(b).

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

Boyd v. East Elmhurst Hospital · filed 2021-09-01(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 venue in a district where the defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events or property at issue is located.

Finnegan v. Salih · filed 2021-09-01(b)

Because the defendants reside, the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims arose, and the property at issue is located, in Washington, D.C., venue lies in the federal judicial district for the District of Columbia.

Section 1391(b) does not make a district a proper federal venue solely because the plaintiffs live there.

De La Rosa v. Garner Global Logistics · filed 2021-09-01(b)

The Court finds that the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division is not a federal district or division where this case might have been brought. See § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district with no connection to the defendants or the alleged misconduct.

Campbell v. Bennett · filed 2021-09-10(b)

As an initial matter, the Southern District of Georgia is not a proper venue for this case. A federal case may be brought in either the judicial district in which any defendant resides or “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). None of the named defendants nor alleged misconduct have any connection to this district, or the state of Georgia. The proper venue for this claim is the District of South Carolina.

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

Gateway Clippers Holdings LLC v. Main Street America Protection Insurance Company · filed 2021-09-14(b)

Here, Main Street resides in the Middle District of Florida, a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred there, and "a substantial part of the property that is subject to the action is situated" in the Middle District of Florida.

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

CARMONA v. UNION COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY · filed 2021-09-20(b)

Under § 1391, the Plaintiff’s action may be heard in a venue where the Jane Doe Defendant resides, or in the venue where the issue substantially ... arose, which here is the Middle District of North Carolina.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where its defendant-residence condition is met or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

The Moorish Militia v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts · filed 2021-09-23(b)

Because Plaintiffs do not allege that any defendant resides in this district or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to their claims arose in this district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b).

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

Fayez-Olabi v. Credit Acceptance Corporation · filed 2021-09-23(b)

The underlying events occurred in Suffolk County, where Plaintiff lives and Defendant resides. Suffolk County is within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendant does not reside and no substantial part of the events or property at issue is located.

Thierry v. Martin · filed 2021-09-24(b)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Martin resides in this judicial district, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims arose in this judicial district, or that a substantial part of the property that is the subject of this action is situated in this judicial district, venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state, where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or, if neither applies, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Laios v. MTM Builder/Developer, Inc. · filed 2021-09-30(b)

Because Maryland is not a proper venue for this action under any of the three subsections of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ action on improper venue grounds as well.

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

HOCH v. CARPENTER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION · filed 2021-10-13(b)(1), (b)(2)

Venue is proper because Hoch brought this action in the district where Carpenter resides and where a substantial part of the acts giving rise to his claim occurred.

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

Amat v. Hand To Hand Express · filed 2021-10-14(b)

Venue is not proper under Section 1391(b)(1), because none of the Defendants reside in this District; it is not proper under Section 1391(b)(2), because no events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.

Under § 1391(b), passing references to a district do not establish venue when the defendants and the alleged misconduct are elsewhere.

Lewis-Davis v. Baltimore County Public Schools Infants & Toddlers Program · filed 2021-10-13(b)

These two entities are located in Philadelphia, and all of the alleged misconduct giving rise to the claims occurred in Philadelphia. See ECF 105 at 1-3. This is not altered by the handful of references to CCBC or Baltimore. Venue does not lie in Maryland.

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

Mitchell v. Witt · filed 2021-10-27(b)

Venue for Mr. Mitchell’s lawsuit is not proper in the Eastern District of Michigan because he has not alleged that any of the acts, events, or omissions which form the basis of his lawsuit took place in this 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.

SCHILLER v. FERNELD · filed 2021-10-18(b)

The underlying events occurred in Maine, where Defendants reside. Venue is therefore proper in the District of Maine.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state; under § 1391(c)(2), an entity resides in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction in the action.

Alvotech USA Inc. v. Abbvie Inc · filed 2021-10-22(b)(1), (c)(2)

Venue for this suit would be proper in the Northern District of Illinois. Where jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship, venue is 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); JTH Tax, 482 F. Supp. 2d at 736. An entity, if a defendant, shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which such defendant is “subject to the court’s personal Jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2).

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

Woods v. Broomfield · filed 2021-10-27(b)(2)

Because Petitioner is currently confined at San Quentin and alleges that the events at issue took place at that same institution, see Pet. at 1, 19, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Northern District of California, the Court concludes the proper venue for this challenge is the Northern District regardless of whether these claims ultimately fall within the core of habeas corpus or section 1983.

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

Witcher v. Moriber · filed 2021-10-29(b)(2)

The underlying events occurred in Jamaica, New York, where Defendant appears to reside. Jamaica is located in Queens County, which falls within the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(c). Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Chang v. Tropicana Casino · filed 2021-10-18(b)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant Tropicana Casino resides in this federal judicial district or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims arose in this federal judicial district, venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district when all defendants reside and all alleged conduct occurred in another state.

Holloway v. Sununu · filed 2021-11-01(b)

Under this rubric, venue does not exist in the District of Massachusetts. All the alleged misconduct occurred in New Hampshire, all the defendants reside in New Hampshire, and the criminal procedure against Holloway is proceeding in New Hampshire.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the district where the events underlying the claim occurred and the parties reside.

King v. United States Penitentiary · filed 2021-11-02(b)

Plaintiff presents 16 || allegations pertaining to events that occurred at the United States Penitentiary Victorville where he 5 17 || is incarcerated. That prison is located in the Central District of California. The acts underlying this 18 complaint occurred in the Central District, where and Plaintiff and Defendants reside. Venue, 19 || therefore, properly lies in that district and not in this one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Lay v. McConnell · filed 2021-11-02(b)(1)-(2)

The proper venue for Plaintiff’s action is in the “judicial district in which any defendant resides” or the “judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or ... 3 ... omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1-2). Plaintiff alleges Senator McConnell is a citizen of Kentucky, and although Senator Schumer represents New York, he allegedly is a citizen of Washington, D.C. (Dkt. 1 at 1-2). Plaintiff further claims that at least part of the events occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Id. at 2. Therefore, venue is not proper in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

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

(PS) Walter v. Court Clerk, City of Bartlesville, OK · filed 2021-11-10(b)

In this case, although the complaint is difficult to decipher, it is apparent that all or most of the defendants are residents of Washington County, Oklahoma, and the claims arose there. ... Washington County is in the Northern District of Oklahoma. Therefore, plaintiffs case should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

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

Jones v. Doe · filed 2021-11-10(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges that Defendant resides outside this district and that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claim arose outside this district, venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).