28 U.S.C. § 1391

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

Scales v. Federal Bureau of Investigations · filed 2022-12-09(b)(1), (2)

Because the FBI does not reside in the Southern District of New York, and the alleged events did not occur in this District, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this District under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Richardson v. Edmondson · filed 2022-12-12(b)

In this case, venue is not proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, as the claim arose while Plaintiff was confined at USP- Oklahoma Holdover Federal Facility, which is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Oklahoma.

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

Luevano v. Westlaw Group · filed 2022-12-16(b)

Venue therefore properly lies in the Western District of Texas. See id. § 1391(b).

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

Rogers v. Hernandez · filed 2022-12-19(b)(1), (2)

Because Defendant resides in Wisconsin, and the alleged events occurred in Wisconsin, 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) do not establish venue in a district where no defendant residence is pleaded and the alleged events occurred elsewhere.

Both v. Pacific Medical Revenue, Inc. · filed 2022-12-07(b)(1), (2)

Because Defendant Ethne Nance is employed at Pacific Medical Revenue, Inc., which is located in Woodbridge, Virginia, and the alleged events occurred in Woodbridge, Virginia, 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) allow 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.

Brown v. Rensselaer County Jail · filed 2022-12-15(b)(1) and (b)(2)

As to Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1981 and state law, however, because Plaintiff alleges that Defendant resides outside of this District and that a substantial part of the events giving rise to her claims occurred outside of this District, it is clear from the face of the complaint that this court is not a proper venue for those claims under Section 1391(b)(1) or (b)(2).

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

Razzoli v. USDA · filed 2022-12-22(b)

Finally, a civil action must be filed in the judicial district where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). As explained, the Department does not reside in any state. And the Hunts Point confrontations happened in the Bronx, which is within the jurisdiction of the Southern, not the Eastern, District of New York. Venue is therefore improper.

Section 1391 permits venue for claims governed by the general venue statute where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction or a substantial part of the underlying events or property is located.

Hofbruhaus of America. LLC v. Oak Tree Management Services, Inc. · filed 2023-01-03(b), (c)

Venue for the remaining claims is also proper in both Nevada and Illinois because, because under the general venue statute, venue is proper in any district in which Oak Tree would be subject to personal jurisdiction or any district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.

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

(PS) Zito v. Collins · filed 2023-01-05(b)

In this case, both defendants are in Boston, Massachusetts. ECF No. 1 at 2. The complaint is based on a contract for legal services that identifies the location of representation as Boston, Massachusetts and which identifies Boston, Massachusetts as the location in which disputes arising from the contract will be resolved. ECF No. 1 at 6, 8. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

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

Zito v. Collins · filed 2023-01-05(b)

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

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

Ken Mathis v. Reynolds · filed 2023-01-06(b)

After carefully reviewing this prisoner civil-rights complaint,1 the Court has been unable to find any reference whatsoever to Utah, let alone any allegation that Utah is home to any party, events, omissions or property possibly involved in this case.

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

Germano v. Beck · filed 2023-01-10(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, venue is not proper in this Court under either Section 1391(b)(1) or Section 1391(b)(2).

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.

Smith v. Vella · filed 2023-01-10(b)(1), (b)(2)

The facts in the complaint show that all Defendants reside in Arizona, where the industrial hemp was shipped, and it thus appears that a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in Arizona. Thus the United States District Court for the District of Arizona is a proper venue for this action, under either Section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Kelly 225090 v. Corizon of Michigan · filed 2023-01-17(b)

Venue for a civil action brought in federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Venue is therefore proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, not this Court.

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

Greaves v. U.S.A. Cricket · filed 2023-01-18(b)

Based on the allegations in the complaint, the Court finds that venue is improper. Indeed, none of the defendants reside here,' no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred here, and Plaintiff does not allege that there is no district in which this action may have otherwise been brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district with no apparent connection to the defendant or the events giving rise to the claim.

Sifuentes III v. TV · filed 2023-01-19(b)

Therefore, the Court concludes that venue is improper and is DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint.

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

Ekeoma v. The City of New York · filed 2023-01-26(b)

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

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

Bennett v. Jehovah's Witnesses · filed 2023-01-31(b)

Based on Plaintiff’s allegations about where Defendants reside, venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1) because he alleges that one Defendant is located in this District and all Defendants are in New York. Because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in West Virginia, the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia is also a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391 places venue for a non-diversity action in the district where the defendants reside or the claim arose.

Valentinis-Dee v. Director, TDCJ-CID Case transferred to the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Divi · filed 2023-02-03

When 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 Sumter County, Florida is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, venue in the Eastern District of Texas is not proper.

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

Drumgoole v. Homeland Security · filed 2023-02-06(b)(1) and (b)(2)

As Plaintiff’s pre-incarceration domicile appears to have been in Maryland,1 see 20-CR-442, ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 12-14, and as it appears that the majority of the allegations giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims arise from a pending criminal case in the District of Maryland, venue is not proper in this Court under §§ 1391(b)(1) or 1391(b)(2).

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

Grefer v. Cornelius · filed 2023-02-07(b)

Based upon the foregoing, this Court finds that venue for Plaintiff’s action is not proper in this District.

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in a district when the alleged events occurred elsewhere and the defendant is not alleged to reside there.

Grefer v. Chirco · filed 2023-02-07(b)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that the events underlying the claims asserted in the complaint occurred in Auburn, New York, which is located in Cayuga County and thus within the geographical confines of the Northern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a). Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege that the Defendant resides within this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1). Thus, there is no apparent basis for venue in the Western District.

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

Grefer v. Cayuga County · filed 2023-02-07(b)

He alleges that the events underlying the claims asserted in the complaint occurred in Auburn, New York, which is located in Cayuga County and thus within the geographical confines of the Northern District. ... Plaintiff does not allege that either Defendant resides within this District. ... Thus, there is no apparent basis for venue in the Western District.

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.

Thompson v. Inman · filed 2023-02-13(b)

For similar reasons, this action must be dismissed for improper venue. Venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1). ... Here, the remaining Kelsch Defendants do not reside in Oregon, the subject of the claims against them did not take place in Oregon, and Oregon courts cannot otherwise exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. Venue in the District of Oregon is improper.

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

Dunlap v. Terry · filed 2023-02-14(b)(1)–(2)

Because Terry, the only defendant in this case, resides in Tennessee and the accident occurred in Tennessee, venue is improper in this district.

Section 1391(b) requires venue to satisfy at least one of its residence, substantial-events, or fallback personal-jurisdiction grounds.

Reed International, Inc. v. Afghanistan International Bank · filed 2023-02-21(b)

Reed’s claims fail to meet all three of these requirements for venue in New York State.

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

Jackson v. Navajo Nation · filed 2023-02-17(b)

Here, the Complaint lists each defendant as residing outside the State of Hawaii (listing the defendants as residents of Arizona, Oklahoma, Republic of Korea, and Belgium). Further, there is no connection between Plaintiff’s allegations and Hawaii. ... And venue is clearly improper in the District of Hawaii.

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

(PC) Dunbar v. Dahlberg · filed 2023-02-27(b)

In this case, no defendant resides in this district, and plaintiff’s claims arose in Del Norte County in the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). This action should have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

Mann v. Smith · filed 2023-02-27(b)

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

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

Richardson v. Falk · filed 2023-02-28(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 of Michigan.

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

Doe v. Pistilli · filed 2023-03-01(b)

In the course of examining closely the complaint and the parties’ current letters/motions, and because the case is still in the early pleading stage, the Court has concluded that this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York where all of the parties reside and the operative facts have taken place.

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

Quimiro v. Tomas · filed 2023-03-02(b)

In this case, the defendant(s) are located and the claim arose in San Bernardino 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 a civil action to be brought in a district where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

(PC) Quimiro v. Tomas · filed 2023-03-02(b)

In this case, the defendant(s) are located and the claim arose in San Bernardino County, which is in the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in Nevada for this suit against a school district located in the Northern District of California.

Wood v. Contra Costa County School District · filed 2023-03-02(b)

The R&R finds that venue is not proper in the District of Nevada. Contra Costa County School District is located within the Northern District of California; and therefore, venue appears to be proper there. ... Because Plaintiff did not object and the Court is satisfied that Judge Denney did not clearly err, the Court adopts the R&R.

Section 1391 governs whether venue is proper; the court found venue proper after concluding it could exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Safelite Group, Inc. v. Lockridge · filed 2023-03-06(b)

Having concluded that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Lynch in this action, venue is proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391; Atl. Marina Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist Court for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 57 (2013) (explaining that “venue is proper so long as the requirements of § 1391(b) are met”).

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

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Gateway International Logistics, Inc. · filed 2023-03-13(b)

Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant is incorporated in Maryland and has its principal place of business therein. ... Furthermore, the events giving rise to the case sub judice occurred in Maryland. ... Accordingly, venue is proper in the District of Maryland.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on defendants’ residence, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if neither basis is available, personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Oliver III v. Huffman · filed 2023-03-14(b)

Plaintiff lists Columbus, Ohio addresses for all of the defendants. He further states that he was treated at the Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare Hospital, the Columbus Springs East Hospital, and Riverside Methodist Hospital. All of these facilities are in Columbus, Ohio. Columbus is located within Ohio’s southern judicial district. The Northern District of Ohio is not the proper venue for this action.

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

(PC) Roberts v. Riverside County · filed 2023-03-16(b)

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

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

(PC) Lovell v. East Oakland Police Department · filed 2023-03-22(b)

In this case, the defendant(s) are located and the claim arose in Alameda County, which 1s 1n 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.

PHILLIPPEAUX v. MIAMI APARTMENT INVESTORS, LLC · filed 2023-03-24(b)

The appropriate venue for the matter is the Southern District of Florida because Defendants are residents of Miami, Florida and the complained-of action occurred in Miami, Florida.

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

Chambers v. Memphis International Airport · filed 2023-03-31(b)

In sum, because the Western District of Tennessee is the more appropriate and convenient forum for this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the Court will exercise its discretion and transfer the case to that district for further consideration.

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

Mufti v. Planet Motor Cars Inc. · filed 2023-04-04(b)(1), (b)(2)

Accordingly, because Planet Motor resides in Nassau County, and the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in that 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) directs a case to a district connected to the defendants’ residence or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

(PC) Smith v. Elmwood Correctional Facility · filed 2023-04-06(b)

In this case, the claims arose in Santa Clara County, which is in the Northern District of California and no defendant appears to reside in this district. Therefore, plaintiffs’ claims should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

Townsend v. MPD Homicide Bureau · filed 2023-04-10(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). ... The three named defendants are located in Shelby County, Tennessee and the events giving rise to the complaint occurred there as well. Shelby County is located in the Western District of Tennessee. See 28 U.S.C. § 123. Venue is therefore proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, not this Court.

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

Gray v. CTP Funding · filed 2023-04-12(b)

Ultimately, because Plaintiff has failed to establish any of the conditions outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) apply, venue is not proper in the Eastern District of Washington.

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.

Fountain v. Isaacs · filed 2023-04-12(b)

Because Kenton County is located in the judicial district of the Eastern District of Kentucky, see 28 U.S.C. § 97(a); LR 3.1(a)(1)(B), proper venue lies in that district.

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

Miles-Baker v. de France · filed 2023-04-14(b)

Plaintiff alleges nothing to suggest that Defendant Banque de France 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 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.

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

Estrada v. Department of Labor and Industries · filed 2023-04-20(b)

Therefore, plaintiff's claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

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.

Mahdi v. Ryan · filed 2023-04-07(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because nothing in the complaint suggests that any of the defendants are located in New York, or that the events giving rise to Mahdi’s claims occurred within this district, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Skiff v. Hollander · filed 2023-04-10(b)(1)–(2)

Federal venue is appropriate either in the judicial district where any defendant resides or a district where substantial part of events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The events giving rise to this case occurred at DCI, located in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Defendants in this case are employees of DCI, and therefore are more likely than not residents in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. As such, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to change venue.

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

Benford v. Cornejo · filed 2023-04-10(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) 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.

Benson v. Fort Mill Schools / York County District 4 · filed 2023-04-20(b)

A party may bring a civil action in a judicial district (1) where any defendant resides if all defendants are residents of the state where the district is located or (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Because Defendants live in both South and North Carolina, Plaintiff cannot establish the Western District of North Carolina as the proper venue under the first option in the statute. ... The events giving rise to these claims occurred within South Carolina, making the District of South Carolina the proper venue.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) permit venue where the defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events or property at issue is located.

Marshall v. Kaplus · filed 2023-04-24(b)(1), (b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b) does not make a district a proper venue when the defendants reside and the events giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere.

Pakala v. U.S. District Court Judge · filed 2023-04-25(b)

I find that the District of Nevada is not the appropriate venue for this action. Plaintiff appears to have been convicted and sentenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee and the majority of plaintiff’s defendants reside in that district.

Under § 1391(b), venue is improper in a district where no defendant resides and none of the claims arose.

Serrano v. LA County Sheriffs Department · filed 2023-04-26(b)

In this case, no defendant resides in this district, and plaintiff’s claims arose in Los Angeles County in the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district with no resident defendant when the claims arose in another district.

(PC) Serrano v. LA County Sheriffs Dept. · filed 2023-04-26(b)

In this case, no defendant resides in this district, and plaintiff’s claims arose in Los Angeles County in the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b)(1) supports venue where one or more defendants may be found in the district.

Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp. · filed 2023-04-26(b)(1)

Elohim adequately alleges that venue is proper in this District because one or more of the defendants may be found in the District, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), specifically including karaoke establishments located in Manhattan.

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

Gerrity v. City of Santa Barbara · filed 2023-05-02(b)

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

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

Flores v. American Family Insurance · filed 2023-05-02(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants are employed in Madison and Columbus, Wisconsin, and the alleged events occurred in Madison and Columbus Wisconsin, 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 does not establish venue in a district where no relevant act or omission occurred and the defendant does not reside.

Jones v. USIC · filed 2023-05-05

Plaintiff makes no allegation of an act or omission occurring within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court, nor does Plaintiff allege that Defendant resides within this district. None of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 is present in this case. Accordingly, this Court cannot find that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Missouri.

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

Marshall v. Newark Tax Assessors Office · filed 2023-04-27(b)(1), (b)(2)

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

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

Lavi v. Sharp · filed 2023-05-03(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) does not permit venue in a district solely because one defendant resides there when the other defendants reside elsewhere, no substantial claim events occurred there, and another district may be available.

KABORE v. GLOBAL INVESTMENT TRADING S.A. · filed 2023-05-17(b)

Again, a single Defendant (arguably) resides in New Jersey. Consequently, venue is not appropriate under subsection (1). Further, as discussed, Plaintiffs fail to allege that any relevant events occurred in New Jersey. Subsection (2), therefore, is not applicable. Finally, nothing in the record demonstrates that venue cannot lie elsewhere, such that this Court should determine that venue is appropriate under subsection (3).

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

(PC) Medina v. Johnson · filed 2023-05-26(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 did not permit venue where no defendant resided, no underlying event occurred, and the plaintiff suing a federal agency did not reside.

Williams v. State of Mississippi · filed 2023-05-18(b), (e)

Venue for Defendants is improper in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota because no individual defendant resides in this District and no part of the events underlying the action occurred in this District. ... Additionally, for Defendant National Criminal Information Center, venue is improper in the District of Minnesota because, although the National Criminal Information Center is an agency of the United States and the action does not involve real property, Williams is not a resident of the District of Minnesota.

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

Malone v. Washington, State of · filed 2023-05-31(b)

Federal statute provides that a civil case may be filed 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 judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... After carefully reviewing the Complaint, the court has been unable to find any reference to Utah or any allegation that Utah is home to any party, events, omissions or property involved in this case.

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.

West 813767 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2023-05-31(b)

the Court notes that 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Moreover, Defendant Gibson is a public official serving in Jackson County, and she “resides” in that county for purposes of venue over a suit challenging official acts.

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

Smith v. Wrigglesworth · filed 2023-06-07(b)

Because there is no apparent basis for venue to lie in this district, but the facts alleged in 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) does not establish venue in a district where the defendant does not reside, the events giving rise to the claim occurred elsewhere, and the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction.

Tagliere v. Horseshoe Hammond LLC · filed 2023-06-08(b)

None of the § 1391(b) prongs are met here. ... Venue is therefore improper.

Venue under § 1391(b)(1) and (2) is improper where the defendants reside elsewhere and the alleged events occurred elsewhere.

Flores v. Gonzalez · filed 2023-06-08(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants reside in Madison, Wisconsin, and the alleged events occurred in Madison, Wisconsin, 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 based on defendants’ residence only when all defendants reside in the same state, or based on where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred.

Flowers v. The State of Texas · filed 2023-06-12(b)

Under Section 1391(b)(1), this District is not a proper venue because Biggers names several defendants who are not residents of New York State. Under Section 1391(b)(2), this District is not a proper venue for the claims that arose in Suffolk County, New York, or the claims that arose in El Paso County, Texas.

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

Rivers Bend RV Resort & Campground, LLC · filed 2023-06-20(b)

Relevant here, § 1391 provides that a civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which (1) any defendant resides or (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. ... According to the complaint, venue is not proper here.

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

Smith 811547 v. Vourhees · filed 2023-06-21(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 and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred when the action can be brought elsewhere.

Emrit v. Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) · filed 2023-06-26(b)

Accordingly, upon review of the record, the Report, and the applicable law, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that venue is improper in this district.

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

Emrit v. Jules · filed 2023-06-26(b)

Accordingly, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that venue is improper in this district.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in Idaho when the defendants and the events underlying the claim are in Oregon.

Lingo v. Deschutes County Sheriff's Office · filed 2023-07-06(b)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Lingo’s Complaint alleges that both defendants are based in Bend, Oregon and that the events underlying his Complaint occurred in Bend, Oregon. Lingo has not alleged any facts showing the District of Idaho is the proper venue, as opposed to the District of Oregon, in which Bend, Oregon, is located.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district 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.

Blaskowski v. Minnesota, State of · filed 2023-07-06(b)

The general venue provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provide in pertinent part that ... “(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”. ... Here, neither of the defendants reside within the counties which comprise the Western District of Michigan and plaintiff has not alleged any events which occurred in Michigan. ... Based on plaintiff’s cryptic complaint, venue is proper only in the District of Minnesota.

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

Emrit v. Jules · filed 2023-07-11(b)

The Court finds that venue is clearly inappropriate in the Northern District of Oklahoma because no party resides in this district and no events are alleged to have occurred in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

(PC) Chaves v. Shirley · filed 2023-07-18(b)

The Complaint fails to establish venue because it does not allege where the alleged misconduct occurred or that the Eastern District of California is the judicial district where any of the named Defendants reside.

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.

Challenger v. Administration of Children Services · filed 2023-07-24(b)

This court, and every other federal district court within the State of New York, are proper venues for this action under Section 1391(b)(1) because all of the defendants appear to reside within the State of New York and at least one of the defendants (the New York State Unified Court System) resides in each of federal judicial districts within the State of New York. Because Plaintiff alleges that a significant portion of the events giving rise to his claims occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York, and as Kings County lies within the Eastern District of New York,1 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is clearly also a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

(PC) Archer v. Pixley · filed 2023-07-26(b)

In this case, the defendant(s) are located in Los Angeles County and the claim arose in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County is in the Central District of California. Therefore, ... plaintiffs claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on defendants’ residence, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, if no other district is available, where a defendant may be found.

Hillis v. Louisiana State Bar Association · filed 2023-07-31(b)

Third, venue is in this district is improper. ... Here, the defendants live in Oregon and Louisiana, respectively, and none of the alleged events giving rise to this case occurred in the District of Columbia.

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.

Babineaux v. Boustany · filed 2023-07-31(b)

Because venue is not proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana but would be proper in the Western District of Louisiana, the Court finds that it is in the interest of justice and fairness to the parties that this civil action be transferred to the Western District of Louisiana for further consideration.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and none of the alleged events occurred.

Emrit v. University of Miami School of Law · filed 2023-07-31(b)

In granting Mr. Emrit’s earlier motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court noted that “venue is plainly improper in this court, as none of the defendants is alleged to reside in this district and none of the allegations are related in any way to this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).” (ECF No. 4). ... Venue in the Northern District of Mississippi remains improper.

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.

TALLEY v. CITY OF LAGRANGE GEORGIA · filed 2023-08-01(b)

Accordingly, venue in this district is proper under § 1391(b), and the Court denies LaGrange’s motion to dismiss for improper venue (ECF No. 27).

Section 1391(b) did not make the Eastern District of Michigan a proper venue when the court could not establish that the underlying events occurred there or that the defendants had the required connection to the district.

Sweigert v. Goodman · filed 2023-08-02(b)

However, venue for Plaintiff's lawsuit is not proper in the Eastern District of Michigan because it is not clear that the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Michigan or that either Defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court, let alone both, as required by the statute.

Section 1391 permits venue in a judicial district with a substantial connection to the claim, even when another forum also has a substantial connection.

Blanton v. Covington Credit of Texas Inc · filed 2023-08-03(b)(1)-(2)

Given that the Dallas and Abilene Divisions have substantial connections to the claim (but for different reasons), venue can be properly laid on either one of these divisions. Hence, the parties’ debate on the general elements undergirding 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2) is trivial.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; continuing treatment elsewhere does not make that district a proper venue when the injury arose in another district.

R.J. v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC · filed 2023-08-03(b)

The court agrees with Defendants: Mead Johnson does not reside in Missouri and the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claim occurred in Kansas; Kansas is the appropriate venue.

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.

Marshall v. Caudill · filed 2023-08-09(b)

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts establishing that venue in this district is proper.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper where none of the relevant events occurred and none of the defendants reside.

McNeal v. Gib Lewis Prison Unit · filed 2023-08-14(b)

It appears from McNeal’s complaint that none of the acts giving rise to the alleged civil rights violations occurred in the Southern District of Texas, nor are the TDCJ Units or their employees who would be defendants located within this District. Therefore, the Court concludes that McNeal’s complaint was not properly filed in this district and so is subject to dismissal.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendants reside or a substantial part of the events occurred; diversity jurisdiction alone does not establish venue.

JOHNSON v. KALLIE · filed 2023-08-16(b)

This Court agrees with the Report and finds that the Southern District of Indiana is the most appropriate venue for this case. It satisfies the requirements set forth in § 1391(b) and further, the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice weigh in favor of transferring this action.

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

Lord v. Attorney General · filed 2023-08-22(b)(1), (2)

Venue is only proper in the “judicial district in which any defendant resides” or the “judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2). ... In sum, the Court agrees with Judge Purcell’s analysis and finds that venue is improper in this Court.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in Maryland when the company has its principal place of business there and the individual defendant primarily resides there in the United States.

Tripp v. Ascentage Pharma Group International · filed 2023-08-23(b)

Maryland is the state of Ascentage’s principal place of business and is also the state of Yang’s primary United States residence. The District of Maryland’s subject matter jurisdiction is the same as this Court’s, and defendants do not dispute that personal jurisdiction would appropriately be asserted there. Venue would be appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

(PC) Turner v. Martinez County Jail · filed 2023-08-25(b)

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

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

Momou v. SSM Healthcare of Wisconsin, Inc. · filed 2023-08-25(b)

Venue cannot lie in Kansas under any of these three provisions. It is undisputed that Defendant does not reside in Kansas and that none of the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred here. And, as described in the previous section, Defendant is not subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment on the additional ground that venue is improper.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) do not permit venue in a district with no alleged connection to the defendants or the events giving rise to the claims.

Suarez v. Whole Foods Market IP Inc. · filed 2023-09-01(b)(1), (b)(2)

Therefore, 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) governs venue based on defendants’ residence, where substantial claim events occurred, or, if no other district is available, personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Beck, M.D. v. Bronstein, M.D. · filed 2023-09-08(b)

Because the Court has found that it does not have personal jurisdiction over the Out-of-State Defendants, venue is improper in this judicial district.

Section 1391 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.

Carr v. Fincher · filed 2023-09-08(b)

Moreover, the District of Oregon is not the proper venue for this action. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, a civil action may be brought in a judicial district in which defendant resides or in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. As stated, it appears all Defendants reside in Las Vegas, Nevada. More importantly, none of the events mentioned in Plaintiffs complaint occurred in Oregon.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district 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.

FREEMAN v. HEARTLAND EXPRESS, INC. OF IOWA · filed 2023-09-09(b)

Federal statutes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), permit the filing of civil actions in a judicial district “in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located” or “in 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.” ... Because neither are the Defendants located within the Middle District nor did the alleged incident occur within the Middle District, venue is improper here.

Section 1391(b) does not support venue in a district where no defendant resides and none of the alleged events occurred when another district is available.

Buggs v. City of Plaquemines Police Department · filed 2023-09-11(b)

Buggs has presented no basis for this matter to proceed in the Eastern District of Louisiana. ... The events about which Buggs complains occurred in Iberville Parish. ... The defendants are indicated to be in Iberville Parish, Louisiana. ... The interests of justice and fairness to the parties dictate that venue is appropriate in the Middle District of Louisiana.

Section 1391(b) does not make a plaintiff’s residence a proper venue when the events occurred elsewhere and no defendant resides there.

Moore v. New York City Police Department · filed 2023-09-12(b)

Because Plaintiff asserts that the events giving rise to this action occurred in New York County, and the amended complaint, on its face, indicates that none of the defendants reside in Maryland, venue for this action is not proper in the District of Maryland.

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

Brooks v. Louisiana Workforce Commission · filed 2023-09-18(b)

In the instant case, the defendant is not alleged to reside in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Further, no part of the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred within this district.

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

Azcona v. NJDOC Staff Male Female · filed 2023-09-22(b)(1), (b)(2)

From the face of the complaint, however, 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 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Grovo v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · filed 2023-09-26(b)

Subsection (1) does not support venue in the District of Massachusetts because there is no reason to conclude that the two individual USP Tucson employee defendants are residents of Massachusetts. Subsection (2) supports venue in the District of Massachusetts and the District of Arizona.

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

Adeyinka v. First Judicial District of Pennsylvania · filed 2023-09-26(b)

Defendant is a judicial district in Pennsylvania, and this case appears to concern judicial proceedings in Pennsylvania. The minimal facts alleged indicate that venue is proper in Pennsylvania. They do not indicate that venue is proper in Oregon.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendants do not all reside in the forum state, the events and property at issue are elsewhere, and another district provides proper venue.

Gage v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection · filed 2023-09-27(b)

This Court is the wrong venue for Gage’s suit. The first basis for venue is not met here. Based on the complaint, the Court can conclude that at least the NJDEP is a resident of New Jersey, not D.C. See Compl ¶ 9, ECF No. 1. As a result, not all defendants reside in this district. Nor is the second basis for venue satisfied. The defendants’ alleged conduct occurred in New Jersey, which is also where the property at issue is located. The third basis for venue does not work either. Venue is proper in another district—the district of New Jersey, which is the site of the events and property at issue.

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

(PC) Flynn v. Morgen · filed 2023-09-28(b)

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

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.

Strong 253763 v. Unknown Part(y)(ies) 1 · filed 2023-10-03(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) makes venue improper in a district unrelated to the defendants or the events giving rise to the claim when another proper district is available.

Anderson v. La Cresent Police Department · filed 2023-10-04(b)

Venue does not lie in this district under Section 1391(b).

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

(PS) Maqaddem v. Sepe · filed 2023-10-05(b)

The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in ... (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, ...” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... In this case, the claims arose in Los Angeles California at the Airport Courthouse. ... Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

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

(PS) Maqaddem v. People of the State of CA · filed 2023-10-05(b), (e)(1)

Therefore, because this case is based on events that occurred in Los Angeles and the responding defendants are in Los Angeles, plaintiff’s case should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

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

Thomas v. MDOC · filed 2023-10-05(b)

Venue for a civil action brought in federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Therefore, all of the statutory indicators point to the Western District of Michigan as the only place where venue is proper for this case.

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

Thomas 802563 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2023-10-05(b)

Venue for a civil action brought in federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Therefore, all of the statutory indicators point to the Western District of Michigan as the only place where venue is proper for this case.

Section 1391(b) requires a connection between the chosen district and the parties or alleged events for venue to be proper.

MCCASLIN v. STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS · filed 2023-10-06(b)

There is no link between the District of Maine and the allegations in her complaint that would allow the Court to conclude that venue is proper in Maine.

Section 1391(b) makes venue depend on the remaining defendant’s residence and where the events giving rise to the claim occurred; its fallback applies only when no other district is available.

Godspower v. CoreCivic · filed 2023-10-10(b)

Venue is no longer proper here under subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) because WCFA unit manager “Jane Doe 1” allegedly resides in the vicinity of WCFA (see Doc. No. 12-2 at 1–2) and the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim(s) against “Jane Doe 1” occurred at WCFA.

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.

Rodriguez v. Grant County Child Support Agency · filed 2023-10-12(b)(1)-(2)

Because Beloit (Rock County) and Lancaster (Grant County) are in the Western District of Wisconsin, under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) venue is not proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. ... And because the factual allegations are identical to those in Case No. 23-cv-1195, venue is not proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2).

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

Heimlich v. United States · filed 2023-10-12(b)

The R&R correctly concludes that venue is improper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as no defendant resides here and neither “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” here nor is “a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action . . . situated” here.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendant does not reside and no substantial part of the relevant events occurred when other proper districts are available.

Iglesias v. Arizona Beverages USA, LLC · filed 2023-10-13(b)

Because venue is available under 28 U.S.C. sections (1) and (2) in California, New York, and/or New Jersey, Plaintiff could not have originally brought the instant action in the Eastern District of Missouri.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence, a substantial part of the events or property at issue, or, if no other district is available, where a defendant may be found.

Turner v. Lyons, Doughty, Velduis, P.A./p.C. · filed 2023-10-19(b)

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) (providing dismissal for improper venue). The primary defendant is not located in this District, and to the extent that he intends to sue the federal agencies, he has not presented any allegations against them. Furthermore, none of the acts or omissions giving rise to this case, as far as they can even be understood, occurred in this District.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides under its residence rule, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if no other district is available, where a defendant may be found.

Qtaish v. Bronzeville Park Nursing and Living Center · filed 2023-10-19(b)

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) (providing dismissal for improper venue). None of the Defendants are located here and none of the acts or omissions giving rise to this case, as far as they can even be understood, occurred in this District.

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

Lodhi v. Hobson · filed 2023-10-19(b)

Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to establish venue in this District. 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. ... None of the parties are located here and none of the acts or omissions giving rise to this case, as far as they can even be understood, occurred in this 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.

Kumaran v. ADM Investor Services, Inc. · filed 2023-10-19(b)

Moreover, with respect to the claims against ADMIS, Kadlec and the NFA Defendants, Plaintiffs have not shown that “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred” in Connecticut. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391 does not make venue proper where the plaintiff resides and communicated with the defendant if the defendant resides elsewhere, the alleged misconduct occurred elsewhere, and the property at issue is elsewhere.

Herman v. The Mr/ Cooper Group Inc. · filed 2023-10-20(b)

Because Section 2614 does not apply to Section 2609 claims, venue would be governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. But plaintiff fails to meet the requirements under this standard, too. She does not contend that any defendant resides in this District, the acts giving rise to her claims occurred in this District, or the Property is situated in this District. That plaintiff purportedly interacted with defendant from her home in New York does not make venue proper in this District because defendant’s alleged misconduct giving rise to her claim took place in Texas and relates to the Property situated in Florida, not New York.

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

Bermeo v. Andis · filed 2023-10-25(b)

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants do not meet any of the criteria under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as no Defendant resides in this District, and none of the incidents addressed in the Complaint are alleged to have occurred here.

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

Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation · filed 2023-10-30(b)

Burke’s complaint does not establish that any of the parties reside in Minnesota or allege that the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Minnesota. A civil action may be brought “in a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located” or in a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Middleton v. Brown · filed 2023-11-01(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 that meets none of its three criteria.

Huang v. Valarhash LLC · filed 2023-11-07(b)

The Southern District of New York does not meet any of the criteria in subsections (1) through (3).

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

Ponce v. The Department of Justice · filed 2023-11-13(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants are employed in Washington County and the alleged events occurred in Washington 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) does not permit venue based on a defendant’s residence when the defendants reside in different states, the events occurred elsewhere, and the action could have been brought in another district.

Larsen (PS) v. Wellness Path Medical · filed 2023-11-13(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in: (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property in question is situated; or (3) if there is no other district in which the plaintiff may bring the action, a district where any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. ... These three do not all reside in the same state. The events or omissions giving rise to Larsen’s conditions-of-confinement claims occurred or are occurring in Colorado, which ... “constitutes one judicial district.” ... For these reasons, the court finds that this action, including Larsen’s “emergency motion,” is not properly adjudicated in the Middle District of Tennessee.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on defendants’ residence or a substantial connection between the district and the events or property at issue; the plaintiffs’ residence alone is insufficient.

Murdock v. Maverick Turtle Creek Apartments · filed 2023-11-14(b)

Because it is clear the Murdocks cannot allege any facts that would support venue in the District of Utah under § 1391, Ms. Murdock’s potentially viable FDCPA claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in a district when the defendant and alleged events are in another state and no other basis for venue is alleged.

Kimbrough v. State of North Carolina · filed 2023-11-14(b)

Here, Plaintiff makes no allegations that would make venue proper in this district: she is a resident of North Carolina; the defendant is the State of North Carolina; and “the actionable offenses occurred within the State of North Carolina.” Dkt. No. 1.

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.

Griffin v. Salt Lake City Social Security Office · filed 2023-11-14(b)(1)-(2)

Griffin’s complaint does not allege facts to establish proper venue under either subdivision of § 1391(b) within the District of South Dakota.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the district where the complained-of acts occurred and the defendants appear to reside.

(PC) Hodges v. Unknown · filed 2023-11-17(b)

Here, because the acts complained of seem to have occurred in Kern County, which is located in the Eastern District of California, and it appears that defendants reside in that district, venue properly lies in that district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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 occurred.

Gaines v. Spitner · filed 2023-11-20(b)(1)-(2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1-2), the proper venue for this civil rights action is the Western District of Oklahoma.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district with no connection to the parties or claims when the action can be brought in another district.

Rush v. Lincoln County Jail · filed 2023-11-21(b)

The Court therefore finds that venue is improper in this district under § 1391(b), and that transfer of this action to the Eastern District is warranted under § 1406(a).

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.

Hadnot v. Welz · filed 2023-11-22(b)

In such cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) defines the proper venue and provides that an action should: ... In this case, with respect to Hadnot’s claims, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” appear to have taken place in Lancaster County and within the venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. ... Therefore, this case currently appears to fall within the venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on defendant residence or a substantial part of the events, with a personal-jurisdiction fallback only when no other district provides proper venue.

Collins v. PeaceHealth · filed 2023-12-06(b)

Plaintiff has failed to establish that this Court is the proper venue for her case under any of the three categories of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Accordingly, venue is improper in the District of Oregon.

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

Nevarez v. Idaho State Correctional Institution · filed 2023-12-06(b)

It appears that all defendants and acts at issue are connected to Idaho, and that venue in the District of Idaho is appropriate.

Section 1391(b) ties proper venue to the defendant’s residence or where the underlying events occurred.

Emrit v. Grammy Awards on CBS · filed 2023-12-06(b)

The Court also notes that Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant resides in Michigan or that any of the underlying conduct took place in this district. Thus, venue is not proper in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391 makes venue improper in a district where no defendant resides and none of the alleged events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Proctor, Jr. v. Dialesandro · filed 2023-12-13(b)

Therefore, venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 is not appropriate in the District of South Carolina. ... Therefore, the Court adopts the Report (DE 4) and incorporates it herein by reference.

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

Hill v. Government for the State of West Virginia · filed 2023-12-14(b)

Plaintiff asserts claims that arose at FCI Hazelton, naming as Defendants the State of West Virginia and FCI Hazelton. Thus, 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)–(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.

Rogers v. Mestrin · filed 2023-12-20(b)(1)–(2)

Plaintiff has not addressed how this Court has jurisdiction over any of the named Defendants or why this Court would be the proper venue for this case when none of the parties live or work in Alaska. Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the District of Alaska is not where a substantial part, or even any part, of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in a district where no defendant resides, no substantial events underlying the claims occurred, and the defendants can be sued in another district.

Gonzalez v. LNU · filed 2023-12-29(b)

Subsection (1) is not met. All known parties reside in California, and the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over any Defendant. ... Accepting the allegations as true, the claims here bear no relation to New Mexico. They arise from events that took place in Victorville and, as to the unknown Defendant DOJ employee, in an unknown location. Subsection (2) therefore does not establish venue is proper. Finally, subsection (3) does not apply, because Gonzalez can sue the Defendants in California.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) require facts connecting the defendants or the events underlying the claims to the district where the action is filed.

Scales v. Web Design Gator · filed 2024-01-02(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, these allegations are insufficient to demonstrate, under either 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) or (2), that this court is a proper venue for this action.

Section 1391(b) permits a civil action in a district where the defendants reside or a substantial part of the claim arose.

(PC) TerVeer v. Benavides · filed 2024-01-04(b)

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

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

Scales v. Webster Bank · filed 2024-01-09(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Webster Bank is headquartered in Connecticut, where it appears, from the face of the complaint, that the alleged events occurred, it does not appear that venue is proper in this District under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

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

Alexander v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-05(b)

Yet no event or omission giving rise to this suit allegedly occurred in these counties, and no defendant is alleged to reside here.

Section 1391(b) does not allow fallback venue under paragraph (3) when another district qualifies, and venue based on events requires a substantial part of them to have occurred in the chosen district.

Porter Jr. v. Thompson · filed 2024-03-06(b)

Subsection (2) does not support venue in this Court because the events giving rise to Porter’s claims did not occur in Massachusetts. Because venue exists in the District of New Hampshire, subsection (3) is irrelevant; further, nothing in the complaint suggests that this Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants.

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

Porter Jr v. D + C Revocable Family Trust · filed 2024-03-06(b)

Subsection of the above statute (1) is inapplicable because there is no suggestion that all the defendants are residents of Massachusetts. Subsection (2) does not support venue in this Court because the events giving rise to Porter’s claims did not occur in Massachusetts. Because venue exists in the District of New Hampshire, subsection (3) is irrelevant; further, nothing in the complaint suggests that this Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants.

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

Porter Jr v. State of New Hampshire · filed 2024-03-06(b)

The District of Massachusetts is not the proper venue for Porter’s claim concerning an alleged interest in real property located in New Hampshire, a person residing on that property, and the conduct of employees of a town in New Hampshire. Subsection of the above statute (1) is inapplicable because there is no suggestion that all the defendants are residents of Massachusetts. Subsection (2) does not support venue in this Court because the events giving rise to Porter’s claims did not occur in Massachusetts. Because venue exists in the District of New Hampshire, subsection (3) is irrelevant; further, nothing in the complaint suggests that this Court could exercise personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants.