28 U.S.C. § 1391

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

Hatcher v. Willet · filed 2021-11-12(b)

Affording Plaintiff’s complaint an appropriately liberal construction, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), he alleges that the Defendant lives in Virginia and that the events giving rise to his claims occurred in Alberta, Virginia. Plaintiff does not allege any facts to support venue in the District of South Carolina.

Section 1391 does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and no events giving rise to the claims occurred, when the action could be brought in another district.

McCoy v. SC Tiger Manor, LLC · filed 2021-11-04(b)

For similar reasons, this action must be dismissed for improper venue. Venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1). ... Here, no Defendant resides in Oregon and, at least as alleged in the 44-page Complaint, not one Defendant has any connection at all with the state of Oregon. In fact, no events giving rise to any claim appear to have occurred within thousands of miles of Oregon. Finally, Plaintiff can, and did, bring these claims in the Middle District of Louisiana.

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

King v. Powhida · filed 2021-11-16(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 a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Pavone v. Cardona · filed 2021-11-19(b)

Plaintiff does not allege that any of the named Defendants reside in the Southern District of California. Plaintiff also does not allege that any part of his California State Bar disciplinary proceedings have occurred or are occurring within this District. Plaintiff has not met his burden to show that venue is proper in this District.

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

Brown v. City of Shamokin Police Department · filed 2021-11-16(b)(1), (2)

Because the SPD does not reside in this district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims arose outside this district, venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Baran, Steven v. Dodge County Detention Facility · filed 2021-11-18(b)

In this case, the claim arose in Dodge County, which is in the Western District of Wisconsin. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

Section 1391(b) permits a federal civil rights action where a defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, or where the claims arose.

Simon v. Warden, Federal Corrections Institution (FCI) Tallahassee · filed 2021-12-02(b)

Under § 1391(b), a federal civil rights action may be brought in a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, or in the judicial district in which the claims arose. ... Venue is improper in this district, and the Court finds it to be in the interest of justice to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

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

Jenkins v. Sherry · filed 2021-12-02(b)

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

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

(PC) Torres v. Samuel · filed 2021-12-08(b)

Because the events giving rise to the cause of action occurred in San Luis Obispo County, which is in the Central District of California, and the defendants identified appear to reside in that County, Plaintiff should have filed his complaint there.

Section 1391 makes venue improper where the defendants do not reside in the district and the events giving rise to the claim occurred in another district.

Borash v. Yakima Competency Restoration Center · filed 2021-12-09

Therefore, venue for this case is not proper in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

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

Lurch v. County of Atlantic · filed 2021-12-10(b)

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).

Section 1391 permits venue where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or, if no other district is available, where a defendant may be found.

Blanks v. Salmonson · filed 2021-12-14(b)

A claim is properly filed in the district where any defendant resides, if all the defendants reside in the same State, or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or where any defendant may be found, if there is no district where the action may otherwise be brought. , 444 U.S. 527, 542–45 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The incident complained of did not occur within this judicial district, and the Warden of FCI -Texarkana—the only named Defendant—is not located here.

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

Person Sr. v. Kakani · filed 2021-12-14(b)

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

Section 1391(b) places venue where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; public officials reside where they serve for suits challenging their official acts.

Scott 773869 v. Christiansen · filed 2021-12-08(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). The events underlying the complaint occurred in Gratiot County. Defendants are public officials serving in Gratiot County, and they “reside” in that county for purposes of venue over a suit challenging official acts. See Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U.S. 128, 132 (1885); O’Neill v. Battisti, 472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972). Gratiot County is within the geographical boundaries of the Eastern District of Michigan. 28 U.S.C. § 102(a). In these circumstances, venue is proper only in the Eastern District.

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

(PC) Davis v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2021-12-14(b)

Venue, therefore, properly lies in that district and not in this one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Gross v. Stufflebean · filed 2021-12-15(b)

Plaintiff’s complaint does not does not cite any basis for venue in this district under either statute. None of the defendants are alleged to reside, be found, have agents, or have transacted affairs in this district. (See doc. 3 at 3-5.) Plaintiff does not contend that any part of the events or omissions that gave rise to his claims occurred here; his claims against the defendants are based on events that all occurred in California. (See id.) Venue does not appear to be proper in this district.

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

Holmes v. USAA Savings Bank · filed 2021-12-20(b)(1)–(2)

Holmes fails to demonstrate that the District of Nevada is a proper venue for this case.

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.

Hursley v. Corizon Health · filed 2021-12-20(b)

Because there is no apparent basis for venue to lie in the Eastern District of Michigan and facts in the Complaint suggest that venue would be proper in the Western District of Michigan, this Court finds that the interests of justice would be served by transferring the case to the Western District of Michigan, where it should have been filed in the first instance.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) permit venue based on defendants’ residence or a substantial part of the events, omissions, or property at issue.

Ditto v. The Estate of Mary Ditto · filed 2022-01-05(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 claims arose in this district, venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

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.

Douglas v. Cambridge Health Alliance & Affiliates · filed 2022-01-06(b)

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).

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.

Murillo v. Gardena Police Department · filed 2022-01-07(b)

Therefore, Plaintiff’s action 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 defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

(PS) Thomas v. Haire · filed 2022-01-07(b)

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

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

Nailcare Academy LLC v. Medinails, Inc · filed 2022-01-06(b)(1)

To start, Plaintiffs could have sued in Tennessee because it was a proper venue. Both Defendants are residents of Signal Mountain, Tennessee. The Court notices the location of that town (i.e., Hamilton County, which is within the Chattanooga Division). Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(1). So venue exists there even without the FSC. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1), 1404(a).

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

Fraly v. Grand Traverse County Child Protective Service Employee's · filed 2022-01-11(b)

The public officials sued in this case perform their official duties in Grand Traverse County, Michigan, and the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred there. ... The proper venue for this action, therefore, is the Southern Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

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.

Jason v. Beslow · filed 2022-01-12(b)

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,1 venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where the defendants perform their official duties and the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Beard v. Horton · filed 2022-01-13(b)

The individuals sued in this case perform their official duties at the URF in Kincheloe, and the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred there. Kincheloe is part of Chippewa County, which lies within the geographical boundaries for the Federal District Court in the Western District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2). Therefore, the proper venue for this action is the Northern Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

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

Folley v. Gorman · filed 2022-01-14(b)

However, the Court finds that the Southern District o...California is not the proper venue for Plaintiff's case, and therefore TRANSFERS thi:... civil action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

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

(PC) Cowen v. U.S. District Court · filed 2022-01-18(b)

In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose at Salinas Valley State Prison, 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.

Callahan v. Texas Department of Child Protection · filed 2022-01-24(b)(1), (2)

Plaintiff clearly complains about events occurring in the State of Texas and names two Defendants who reside in Van Zandt County, Texas, which is within the Eastern District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(1). Thus, venue is proper in that District. 28 U.S.C. § 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.

Taylor 940436 v. Purdom · filed 2022-01-26(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. ... 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 and none of the alleged events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Peter v. Wojcicki · filed 2022-01-26(b)

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

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in a district with no connection to the parties or the subject matter of the suit.

Ruzsa v. Stanley Steemer Co. · filed 2022-01-18(b)

Moreover, there is absolutely no connection raised between the subject matter of this lawsuit, or the parties, to the District of Columbia, therefore, plaintiff has also failed to establish venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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.

(PC) Johnson v. Wieser · filed 2022-01-28(b)

In this case, the defendant is located and the claim arose in Fremont County, which is in the District of Colorado. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States ... District Court for Colorado.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district with no alleged defendant residence or substantial connection to the claims when another district contains a substantial part of the events.

Pham v. Unidentified DEA Agent · filed 2022-02-01(b)

Venue for this action 1s inappropriate in the Western District of Louisiana because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants reside in this judicial district, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims did not occur in this judicial district, and a substantial part of any property that may be the subject of this action is not situated in this judicial district.

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

Archer v. UnitedHealthcare Services Incorporated · filed 2022-02-07(b)

Venue is proper where “any defendant resides” or where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... All of Plaintiff’s claims against SRALab occurred in the Northern District of Illinois (Doc. 43 at 2-4), and its principal place of business is in the Northern District of Illinois.

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.

Gardner v. Harvard University · filed 2022-02-10(b)(1)-(2)

Upon reviewing Plaintiff’s Complaint and Request for Injunction (Filing 1), which was filed on February 4, 2022, the court finds this action is filed in the wrong venue, and must be dismissed. ... No Defendant is alleged to be a citizen of Nebraska, nor are any of the events described in the Complaint alleged to have occurred in Nebraska.

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

RAMSAROOP v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC. · filed 2022-02-15(b)

The third possibility—that there is no district in which venue would lie—does not apply. The clear implication is that venue was not proper in the Eastern District of New York.

Section 1391 permits venue in the district where the defendant resides and the alleged events occurred.

Veguilla v. Tattegrain · filed 2022-02-15

All the alleged violations of Veguilla’s complaint occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1.) The sole Defendant also resides in that district. Therefore, venue in this matter is proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

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

Knotts v. Marra · filed 2022-02-18(b)

Because each Defendant is a West Virginia resident, the complained-of events all occurred in West Virginia, and Plaintiff himself initiated this action in this district, venue is proper. See id. at § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the district of a sole corporate defendant’s principal place of business.

Seale v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. · filed 2022-02-01(b)

First, Gilead has its principal place of business in the Northern District of California and thus is subject to personal jurisdiction in that district. ... Accordingly, this case could have been brought in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(1)-(2) permits venue where the defendants reside or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; the plaintiff’s residence alone does not establish venue.

Carter v. Inslee · filed 2022-02-09(b)(1)-(2)

Venue is proper in the Western District of Washington, not in the District of Montana.

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

Finnegan v. Morford · filed 2022-02-09(b)(1), (2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district or that any 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) permits venue in a district where the defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

ANDREW v. WEXFORD OF INDIANA, LLC · filed 2022-02-14(b)

In sum, neither defendant is or was located in the Northern District, and none of the events at issue in this complaint—Dr. Mitcheff's decisions—took place there. Regardless of the relationship between this action and other actions that did take place in the Northern District, the defendants have not demonstrated that it is a proper venue.

A plaintiff's residence alone does not establish venue when the defendants and the events giving rise to the claim are elsewhere.

Sumter v. Keith · filed 2022-02-17(b)(1)

As the Report notes, Defendants reside in Pennsylvania and the underlying events occurred in Pennsylvania. (Report at 7.) Only Plaintiff resides in this district. Accordingly, the proper venue for this case is the Middle District of Pennsylvania where the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

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

Johnson v. Royal Inn & Suites · filed 2022-02-22(b)

Along these same lines, even if a federal court has jurisdiction over Johnson’s claim, his complaint is filed in the wrong venue. ... In this case, no party appears to reside in the Eastern District of Kentucky, nor did any events giving rise to Johnson’s claim arise here.

Section 1391(b) does not provide venue in a district with no relevant connection to the claims against the defendants.

Lee-Bey v. Shaver · filed 2022-02-28(b)

The incidents involving Defendants Shaver and Locklear allegedly occurred, and the Defendants were employed, at the Pamlico CI, which is located in Pamlico County in the Eastern District of North Carolina. The Plaintiff presently resides at Scotland CI, which is located in Scotland County in the Middle District of North Carolina. Therefore, venue does not lie in this District with regard to the claims against Defendants Shaver and Locklear.

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

Rosado v. Dickson · filed 2022-03-02(b)

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 Section 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; a petition challenging an Orange County conviction belongs in the Central District of California.

(HC)Guzman v. Ettan · filed 2022-03-04(b)

Here, the petitioner is challenging a conviction from Orange County, which is located in the Central District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

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

Hall v. United States of America · filed 2022-03-04(b)

In this case, plaintiff’s allegations concern his allegedly malicious and wrongful prosecution while in the State of Utah. All the factual allegations describe events taking place in Utah, while all the defendants are provided Utah addresses. Plaintiff has shown no connection between the events in the amended complaint and the Eastern District of Missouri. Therefore, venue is not proper here.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on the defendant’s residence or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, with a personal-jurisdiction fallback if no other district qualifies.

EASTERN CONTROLS, INC. v. BORYSOWSKI · filed 2022-03-11(b)

Thus, the Court finds that neither of the first two prongs of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) are satisfied.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or, if neither provides a suitable venue, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Jones v. Walmart, Inc. · filed 2022-03-16(b)

Finally, improper venue is an additional basis for dismissal. Venue is proper in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; or (2) a district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). If neither of those yield a suitable venue, then an action may be brought where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Id. As discussed, Defendant Walmart is not a citizen of Oklahoma, the alleged events giving rise to Plaintiff Jones’ lawsuit did not occur in Oklahoma, and there is no personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma over Defendant Walmart for any alleged claims in this lawsuit. Therefore, venue is not proper.

A plaintiff’s residence in another state does not by itself make venue improper under § 1391(b).

Crain v. First Security Bank · filed 2022-03-21(b)

Marc’s motion to change venue lacks merit. Though he lives in California, Marc brought his claims here and venue is proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Clark-Parker v. Rowan-Salisbury School System · filed 2022-03-24(b)

All statutory bases for finding venue, namely 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), 28 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-42, overwhelmingly support transfer to the Middle District, as that judicial district has the most substantial connection to the claims in this matter.

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

Schmidt v. City of Lima · filed 2022-03-24(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, and is improper in this Court.

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

(PC) Pelton v. Amador · filed 2022-03-28(b)

In this case, the defendant(s) are located, and the claim arose, in San Francisco County which 1s 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 claims occurred.

Meatheney v. Arts Performing Center LLC · filed 2022-03-29(b)

This case falls into two of the §1391 categories. According to the complaint, all four defendants are Wisconsin residents and the corporate defendants have their principle places of business in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, dkt. no. 1 at ¶¶11-14, and all the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Venue is proper in the Eastern District.

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

Lurch, Jr. v. Bernal · filed 2022-03-29(b)

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 Section 1391(b).

Section 1391 permits venue based on defendant residence when all defendants reside in the same state, a substantial part of the events or omissions, or a substantial part of the property at issue.

Peterson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2022-03-31

Venue is proper in a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the state in which the judicial district is located; where a “substantial part of the events and omissions” giving rise to the claim occurred; or where a “substantial part of the property” that is the subject of the litigation is located. 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Nevertheless, in my view, no showing of any of the standards for proper venue has been made.

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

Miller v. Bauman · filed 2022-04-01(b)

The named defendants reside in Luce County, Michigan, and the events giving rise to the complaint appear to have occurred in Luce County as well. Luce County is located in the Western District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2). Venue is therefore improper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, but it is proper in the Western District.

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

Sweigert v. Goodman · filed 2022-04-01(b)

Venue is in the judicial district where either all defendants reside, or where the claim arose and personal jurisdiction exists. A/l-Muhaymin v. Jones, 895 F. 2d 1147, 1148 (6th Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... But venue for Plaintiff's lawsuit is not proper in the Eastern District of Michigan.

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

Shirley v. Simms · filed 2022-04-01(b)

Venue for a federal action generally 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). ... Thus, this action could have been properly filed in either district.

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.

Ramani v. TuneCore Inc. · filed 2022-04-05(b)

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 Section 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) does not support venue in a district where the defendants reside elsewhere and the complaint identifies no events or omissions there.

Turner v. State of Colorado · filed 2022-04-08(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), “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 section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” As alleged, both Defendants are Colorado entities, one without a principal place of business listed and one with a principal place of business in Colorado. (Complaint at 4 (Dkt. No. 5).) Additionally, Plaintiff’s complaint does not describe where the events or omissions occurred. Given these allegations, venue is not proper in this District.

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

(HC) Hendon v. Burton · filed 2022-04-14(b)

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants 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 the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which 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 petitioner is challenging a conviction from Santa Clara County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

Jones v. Case Records at Salinas Valley State Prison · filed 2022-04-18(b)(2)

Any claims against officials at High Desert State Prison for delaying his release date must ... be brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, not in this Court, because the Eastern District is the proper venue for claims arising in Lassen County, where High Desert State Prison is located.

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

Libertad v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · filed 2022-04-18(b)

Personal jurisdiction is off the table as discussed. And Defendants reside in Massachusetts, where Plaintiff's claims occurred, not Georgia. So, Plaintiff has failed to establish that this district is the proper venue, further warranting dismissal.

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

Blaylock 895020 v. Adams · filed 2022-04-18(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) permits venue where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Taylor 940436 v. Bean · filed 2022-04-20(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 relevant events occurred, and the fallback basis for venue does not apply.

Peter v. Wojcicki · filed 2022-04-20(b)

None of the Defendants reside in Ohio. Although Covid- 19 is a global pandemic, Plaintiffs have not alleged any events which specifically occurred in the Northern District of Ohio. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not alleged facts that suggest this District Court has personal jurisdiction over any of the Defendants. This Court is not the proper venue for this action.

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

Luis v. Medley, Inc. · filed 2022-04-22(b)

As discussed above, the Complaint’s allegations clearly allege that Plaintiff resides in Kings County (Brooklyn), and it appears that the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims, his attempts to access Defendants website, occurred there as well. (See Compl. ¶¶ 4–18.) Moreover, there does not appear to be any specific connection to this venue. Accordingly, the Court TRANSFERS the instant action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York sua sponte.

Section 1391(b) supports venue in the district where the remaining defendants are located and the events underlying the claims occurred.

BELL v. WARD · filed 2022-05-09(b)

As noted above, Plaintiff’s claims arise from his treatment at JSP, which is located in the Southern District of Georgia, and both remaining Defendants appear to be located there. After the dismissal of the GDC and Defendant Ward, there is no longer a basis for venue in this Court, and a proper venue for this case would be in the Southern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Martin 794831 v. Unknown Part(y)(ies) · filed 2022-05-09(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) identifies the districts where venue is proper based on defendants’ residence, the location of relevant events or property, and a fallback when no other district is available.

Jolly v. Geib · filed 2022-05-12(b)

Finally, plaintiff has failed to establish venue over any of her claims. Venue in a civil action is proper only in (1) the district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state in which the district is located, (2) in 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) in a 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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (dismissal for improper venue). Courts in this jurisdiction must examine venue carefully to guard against the danger that a plaintiff might improperly manufacture it in the District of Columbia. See Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253, 256 (D.C. Cir. 1993). By naming federal agencies as defendants, a plaintiff could attempt to bring a suit in the District of Columbia that should properly be pursued elsewhere. See id. Here, to whatever extent plaintiff may seek to raise federal questions, such claims must be properly sued in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Section 1391(b) requires facts showing that venue is proper in the chosen district.

Clervrain v. Boyer · filed 2022-05-12(b)

Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts showing venue is proper in the District of South Dakota.

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue where the complaint supplies no basis for bringing the action in the district.

Houston v. Stucker · filed 2022-05-26(b)

Venue in the Eastern District of Wisconsin is improper because the complaint provides no basis for venue in this district.

Section 1391(b) requires a connection between the parties or the subject matter of a lawsuit and the district where it is filed.

Minter v. Delmastro · filed 2022-05-26(b)

Third, there is absolutely no connection raised between the subject matter of this lawsuit, or the parties, to the District of Columbia, therefore, Minter has also failed to establish venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where all defendants reside in the state or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; its fallback applies only if neither basis provides a district.

Lombard v. Baker · filed 2022-05-31(b)

Thus, venue would be proper in the Middle District of Alabama under section 1391(b)(1) or (b)(2), and section 1391(b)(3) is not applicable in this case.

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.

Rizzo v. New York State · filed 2022-05-31(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants are employed at Upstate, where the alleged events occurred, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1), (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.

(PC) Diggs v. Contra Costa County Jail Food Services, West County Jail · filed 2022-06-01(b)

In this case, plaintiff’s claim arose in Contra Costa County and defendant is located there. Contra Costa County lies within the jurisdiction of the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district 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.

Wooten v. Ascend/Alkem Laboratories · filed 2022-06-02(b)

Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Moore v. Bruce · filed 2022-06-07(b)(1)-(2)

Therefore, the Court finds proper venue does not lie in this district, and the case should be transferred to the Western District.

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

Rain v. The City of New York · filed 2022-06-08(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, while this Court may be an appropriate venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1), it is clear that the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1) and Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(e) does not make venue proper in a district merely because a plaintiff is dissatisfied with a judge’s rulings elsewhere.

BOSTON v. (INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE) ADMINISTRATION · filed 2022-06-08(e)

Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with that judge’s decisions does not affect whether venue is proper in this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). As the Magistrate Judge properly concluded in the Report and Recommendation, venue 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 suit occurred.

Washington v. Van Lanen · filed 2022-06-09(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a) and (b), venue is proper in a district court where one or more of the defendants reside (if they are all residents of the same state), or where a substantial part of events giving rise to a lawsuit occurred. ... Because plaintiff has not otherwise suggested that venue is proper in this district, the court finds that venue is improper here, and further that transferring this case to the Eastern District of Wisconsin, where venue is proper, serves the interests of justice.

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

Besley v. LaBeau · filed 2022-06-14(b)(1), (2)

Because Defendants are employed at the Chemung County Public Defender and the alleged events occurred in Chemung County, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Talal v. The City of Elizabeth · filed 2022-06-24(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendant is located in New Jersey and the alleged events occurred in New Jersey, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Harding v. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. · filed 2022-06-28(b)

Even though venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Muskogee, Oklahoma, venue would also be proper in the Eastern District of Oklahoma under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391 permits venue where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events occurred, or in certain cases where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction; a corporate defendant resides where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Don King Productions, Inc. v. World Boxing Association · filed 2022-06-14(b), (c)

Section 1391(c) further provides that a corporate entity resides, for venue purposes, in any judicial district in which it is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the action in question. Venue is not proper under Section 1391(b)(1) because Defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction and therefore does not “reside” here; venue is not proper under Section 1391(b)(2) because Plaintiff does not allege that the bouts at issue and giving rise to its claims were scheduled to take place in New York; and, venue is not proper under Section 1391(b)(3) because Defendant is subject to suit in another district—in its state of incorporation, Washington—and Defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.

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

Jenkins v. O'Neil · filed 2022-07-12(b)

When jurisdiction is not based solely on diversity, venue is proper in (1) the district in which any defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the same state; (2) the district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Therefore, the Court concludes venue in this Court is improper.

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.

King v. Supreme Court of Florida · filed 2022-07-13(b)

There is no sign that any Defendant resides in this State, much less this District, nor that any relevant conduct occurred in this State or District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Todd v. Doe · filed 2022-07-19(b)

Because the defendants are located in the Western District and the complaint concerns events arising there as well, venue is not proper in this district.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) permits venue where all defendants reside in the forum state or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district.

Edwards v. Grisham · filed 2022-07-20(b)(1), (2)

The district court properly dismissed Edwards’s action for improper venue because Edwards failed to establish that all of the defendants reside in Arizona or that a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claims occurred there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2) (describing where a civil action may be brought).

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

Kirksey v. Parker · filed 2022-07-22(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a) and (b), venue is proper in a district court where one or more of the defendants reside (if they are all residents of the same state), or where a substantial part of events giving rise to a lawsuit occurred. ... In any event, defendant is correct that at this juncture, venue is improper in this district court, which this court cannot ignore.

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 suit occurred.

Kirksey, Terrance v. Correctional Officer Parker · filed 2022-07-22(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a) and (b), venue is proper in a district court where one or more of the defendants reside (if they are all residents of the same state), or where a substantial part of events giving rise to a lawsuit occurred. ... Venue is improper here, and the court finds that transferring this case to the Eastern District of Wisconsin, where venue is proper, serves the interests of justice.

Section 1391 makes venue improper in a district where neither party resides and no part of the events underlying the claim occurred.

Anderson v. Snap Inc. · filed 2022-07-14(b)

Even if the criteria for diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction have been met, this Court is not the proper venue for this claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Neither party resides in the Southern District of California, and no part of the stated events occurred in the Southern District of California.

Section 1391(b)(1)–(2) 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.

Webster v. Core Civic · filed 2022-07-28(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(b) permits venue based on where defendants reside or where a substantial part of the alleged events occurred.

Marcos-Chavela v. New York City 9-11 Memorial Museum · filed 2022-08-01(b)

Further, none of the Defendants are residents of this federal district and there is nothing showing the alleged actions occurred within the district. The complaint is thus filed in the wrong federal district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where the alleged infringer resided and the alleged infringement occurred.

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Jackson · filed 2022-08-04(b)

After review, the Court is satisfied that the Southern District of Alabama is an appropriate venue for resolution of the dispute between Joe Hand and a non-party alleged infringer.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district where the defendant does not reside and the events giving rise to the claim did not occur.

Jones, William v. Donovan, Mike · filed 2022-08-22(b)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (venue is proper where defendants reside or where the events giving rise to the claim took place). ... Here, however, venue is improper in the Western District, meaning that § 1404(a) does not apply.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) permit venue where the defendants reside under the stated conditions or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Moussa v. Obama · filed 2022-07-29(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that this court is not a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Daniels, Jr. v. Nationwide General Insurance Company · filed 2022-08-10(b)(1)–(2), (c)(1)–(2)

Here, the Complaint does not allege any basis for venue in Hawai‘i.

Section 1391 permits suit in any district against a defendant who is not a U.S. resident and in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Reo v. Reynaud · filed 2022-08-04(b)(2), (c)(3)

“[A] defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district.”... Further, “[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.”... Defendant Reynaud is not a resident of the United States of America. ... a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within Lake County, Ohio. ... Therefore, this Court STRIKES Defendant’s third affirmative defense.

Section 1391(b) makes venue proper in a district connected to the defendants or the events giving rise to the claim.

Snyder v. Allison · filed 2022-08-23(b)

Thus, as currently drafted, venue is proper in the Southern District of California only with respect to Plaintiff’s claim that being double-celled at RJD pursuant to the CDCR policy of double-celling inmates violates the Eighth Amendment.

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

ALLEN v. HYATTE · filed 2022-08-24(b)

Thus, venue is proper in the Northern District of Indiana and improper in this District.

Section 1391(b) makes venue proper where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events occurred, subject to its fallback provision.

Bowie v. Butner Medical Center · filed 2022-08-24(b)

Review of the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff and the Defendant are located in Butner, North Carolina and all of the events giving rise to the Complaint occurred there. This case has no connection to the Northern District of Ohio. 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 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). This district court is not the proper venue for this action.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where neither the defendant resides nor a substantial part of the events occurred when another proper district exists.

Washington v. Butler · filed 2022-08-25(b)

None of the requirements of § 1391 are present in this case. Accordingly, venue in the Eastern District of Missouri is not proper.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district where no defendant resides and none of the alleged wrongful acts occurred.

Johnson v. Young · filed 2022-09-01(b)

The Eastern District of Michigan is not the proper venue for this action since none of the named-Defendants reside in this District and none of the alleged wrongful acts occurred in this District.

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

Muminovic v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2022-08-29(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper where no defendant resides, no substantial part of the events occurred, and the action can be brought in another district.

SCOTT v. BAILEY · filed 2022-09-08(b)

Because this Court is not the proper venue for this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the Court will transfer this matter to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(b) does not support venue in a district when the defendants residing there have been dismissed and the events giving rise to the remaining claims occurred elsewhere.

Malek v. New York State Unified Court System · filed 2022-09-09(b)

In light of the Court's dismissal of the Defendants who reside within this District, there is no longer a basis for the remainder of this action to be venued here given that all of the events or omissions that give rise to Plaintiff's remaining claims occurred exclusively within the Eastern District of New York.

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

Muminovic v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2022-09-14(b)(1)-(2)

Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Bell v. Trentzch · filed 2022-09-20(b)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (emphases added). 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 defendants are not residents of Massachusetts. Subsection (2) does not support venue in this Court because the events giving rise to Bell’s claims did not occur in Massachusetts. Because venue exists in the District of Maryland, subsection (3) is irrelevant.

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

Bailey v. Soto · filed 2022-09-21(b)

In these circumstances, venue is proper only in the District of New Jersey.

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

Spertus v. Epic Systems Corporation · filed 2022-09-21

Venue is also proper there because Defendant resides within the Western District of Wisconsin and a substantial part of the conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred there. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1400.

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

Muminovic v. Facebook · filed 2022-09-14(b)(1), (b)(2)

Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant resides in this judicial district or that any of the events giving rise to his claims occurred within this judicial district. Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

Section 1391(b) does not make a plaintiff’s presence in a district sufficient to establish venue when the defendants, property, and relevant events are elsewhere.

GEORGIOU FAMILY TRUST v. RUTHEN · filed 2022-09-21(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a judicial district is a proper venue for a civil action if it is one in which: (1) “any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located”; or (2) “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 . . . .”7 ... Georgiou fails to demonstrate that the District of Nevada is a proper venue for this case. ... The plaintiffs’ presence in this state is insufficient to establish ... proper venue.

Section 1391 permits venue where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events occurred, and assesses a corporate defendant’s residence separately in each district of a state with multiple districts.

TSHUDY v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY · filed 2022-09-13(b)(1), (b)(2), (d)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2), venue would therefore be proper in either the Eastern District or the Middle District, and the Court must apply the balancing test outlined in Jumara.

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

Pellegrino v. Buffalo Police Department · filed 2022-09-23(b)(1)–(2)

Because the defendants appear to reside in Erie County, New York, where the alleged events occurred, from the face of Plaintiff’s submission, it is clear that venue for this action is not proper in this court under Section 1391 (b)(1)—(2).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside and the underlying events occurred.

Dale E. Holloway, Jr. v. Governor, State of New Hampshire, et al. · filed 2022-09-26(b)

Further, venue is appropriate in this district because the defendants are residents of New Hampshire and all the underlying events occurred in the state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside and the underlying events occurred.

Holloway v. Sununu · filed 2022-09-26(b)

Further, venue is appropriate in this district because the defendants are residents of New Hampshire and all the underlying events occurred in the state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Morris v. Hedricks · filed 2022-09-29(b)

This Court finds that venue is improper in the Eastern District of Louisiana because the record shows that: (1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), Defendants do not reside in the Eastern District of Louisiana; (2) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), a “substantial part” of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims did not occur in this District; and (3) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3), the action could have been brought in the Western District of Louisiana.

When jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity, § 1391 permits venue in the judicial district where the defendants reside or the claim arose.

Hudson v. Summers · filed 2022-10-03

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

Lewis v. Carter · filed 2022-10-04(b)

Defendants and Plaintiff reside in Alger County, Michigan for purposes of the complaint and the events giving rise to the complaint occurred there. Alger County is 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.

Under § 1391(b), the absence of resident defendants and alleged conduct in a district can make venue improper there.

Perri v. Burns · filed 2022-10-06(b)

Further, none of the Defendants are residents of this federal district and there is nothing showing the alleged actions occurred within the district. The complaint is thus filed in the wrong federal district.

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.

Brizuela v. Johnson · filed 2022-10-07(b)

In this case, with respect to Plaintiff’s claims, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim appear to have taken place in Morgantown, West Virginia. The only named Defendant is located in the Northern District of West Virginia. Therefore, the proper venue for this case appears to be in the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and the property and events at issue are elsewhere.

Provino v. Cameron County Texas · filed 2022-10-14(b)

Provino’s motion (ECF No. 4) only confirms that this action has been brought in the wrong district.

Section 1391(b)(1)–(2) bases venue on defendants’ residence or where the events giving rise to the claim occurred; the plaintiff’s residence is irrelevant.

Kim v. Saccento · filed 2022-10-17(b)(1)–(2)

Although Kim argues that “venue is proper” in the SDNY because he – the plaintiff – now “is located in New York and a resident of New York State,” Reply Br. at 5, a plaintiff’s residence is irrelevant to the venue inquiry, which instead turns on where the “defendant[s] reside[]” and where “the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)–(2) (emphasis added). Here, the complaint clearly alleges that all the defendants reside in New Jersey and that all the events that gave rise to the alleged claims occurred there. The district court was therefore justified in finding a lack of venue in the SDNY.

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

Sorezo v. The White House · filed 2022-10-17(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) permits venue in a district where the defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

(PS) Lundstrom v. Contra Costa Health Services · filed 2022-10-19(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 is in Contra Costa County, California, and most of the events took place there.

Section 1391(b) requires a petition challenging a conviction and sentence to be filed in the district that issued them.

(HC) Ford v. Trate · filed 2022-10-24(b)

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants 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 the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which 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 petitioner is challenging a conviction and sentence issued from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if neither provides a district, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Ellis v. State of Arizona · filed 2022-10-26(b)

A plaintiff must bring his or her action in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the [same state]; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred . . . or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Although Mr. Ellis resides in Auburn, Washington (see Compl. at 1), he does not allege that any of the Defendants reside in Washington, that any of the events giving rise to his claims took place in Washington, or that this court otherwise has personal jurisdiction over any of the Defendants (see generally id.).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant appears to reside and none of the alleged wrongdoing occurred when the action can be brought in another district.

Johnson v. Meckelburg · filed 2022-10-26(b)

Subsection (1) is not met. The parties appear to reside in Colorado, and it is not clear this Court has personal jurisdiction over any Defendant. ... Accepting the allegations as true, none of the alleged wrongdoing occurred in New Mexico. The claims stem from events in a Colorado prison. Subsection (3) does not apply. It appears Plaintiff can file an action in the Colorado Federal Court and wishes to proceed in that venue.

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

Green v. Wexford County Jail · filed 2022-10-27(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.

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.

Green 850700 v. Taylor · filed 2022-10-27(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.

Section 1391(b) allows a civil action to be brought in a district connected to the defendants’ residences or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

Meyers v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 2022-10-28(b)

To the extent that Plaintiff may be able to state a cognizable claim against any Defendant, venue is thus appropriate in the Middle and Eastern Districts of North Carolina.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides under its state-residency condition, 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.

(PC) Lawrence v. Newsom · filed 2022-10-31(b)

Venue generally is proper in a judicial district in which: (1) any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Here, as Plaintiff acknowledges, the case should have been filed in the Eastern District of California.

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

Weaver v. Brnovich · filed 2022-11-03(b)

Venue generally is proper in a judicial district in which: (1) any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Here, there is no information connecting the complaint to California.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the suit occurred, or, if neither applies, where the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction.

US Dominion, Inc. v. Herring Networks, Inc. · filed 2022-11-07(b)

Venue is proper in the district where (1) any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) “a substantial part” of the events giving rise to the suit occurred; or (3) if venue would not be proper in any district for those reasons, wherever the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Yet no Defendant resides in Colorado. Nor could Defendants plausibly argue that conduct in Colorado comprises “a substantial part” of the events giving rise to Dominion’s claims, which focus on statements made by Defendants. Defendants have thus failed to establish that Dominion could have properly filed this suit in the District of Colorado, and their motion to transfer can be denied on that basis alone.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) can make venue proper in more than one district when the defendant is based in one and substantial events giving rise to the claim occurred in another.

Stewart v. First Student, Inc. · filed 2022-11-07(b)(1), (b)(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2), venue would therefore be proper in either the Northern District or the Southern District.

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

Jackson v. Stewart · filed 2022-11-14(b)(1), (b)(2)

From the face of the complaint therefore, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2), but that under Section 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) permit venue based on defendants’ residence or where a substantial part of the events occurred.

Abdullah v. Albany Med. Center, D.O.C.C.S. · filed 2022-10-27(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants are employed at Eastern CF, Albany Medical Center, and DOCCS, which is located in Albany, and the alleged events occurred in Ulster, Albany, and Franklin Counties, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Strothers v. Doe · filed 2022-11-04(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants are employed at Wallkill and Shawangunk Correctional Facilities and the alleged events occurred in Ulster County, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

Unrelated offices do not establish venue under § 1391(b) when the defendant does not reside in the district and the substantial events occurred elsewhere.

Grossman v. Citibank, N.A. · filed 2022-11-04(b)

As discussed above, Defendant does not reside in the Northern Counties, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Great Neck, New York, i.e., Nassau County, wherein Plaintiff resides.

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.

Francis v. LaFever · filed 2022-11-03(b)(1)–(2)

Under § 1391(b)(1)–(2), venue is proper only in the Middle District of Tennessee.

Section 1391(b) makes venue proper in a district supported by the alleged facts and named defendants.

Meredith v. Gurun · filed 2022-11-16(b)

From the facts alleged and the Defendants named, venue properly lies in the Western District of Arkansas. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) places venue for a civil action in a district connected to the defendants or to a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

Kruppe v. Warden · filed 2022-11-21(b)

Therefore, the petition 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.

(PC) Williams-Mootry v. Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall · filed 2022-11-23(b)

In this case, the defendant(s) 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) permits venue where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the state, or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Rhule v. Parker · filed 2022-12-02(b)(1)-(2)

This argument, however, neglects to consider that there are other Defendants, all of whom are located in the Middle District of Tennessee, and some of the events occurred in this district. Venue is clearly proper under the general venue statute: ... 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (emphasis added).

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

Barnaby v. Michigan State Government · filed 2022-12-05(b)

Venue for a federal civil action generally 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). ... It is apparent that Barnaby’s claims arose there and that the majority of the defendants (including the defendants with a potentially meaningful connection ... to his claims) reside there.

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

Miles-Baker v. NatWest Group PLC · filed 2022-12-09(b)

Plaintiff alleges nothing to suggest that Defendant NatWest Group PLC resides within this judicial district, that any of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within this judicial district, that any property at issue is located within this judicial district, or that Defendant NatWest Group PLC is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to this action. The Court therefore additionally dismisses this action as pending in the wrong venue.