28 U.S.C. § 1391

Section 1391(b) governs venue for § 1983 actions and permits suit where defendants reside or a substantial part of the events occurred.

Moncrief v. Lafayette City Police · filed 2024-03-08(b)

The general venue statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides as follows: ... Moncrief has presented no basis for this matter to proceed in the Eastern District of Louisiana. ... Broadly construing Moncrief’s claims, the events about which he complains occurred in the City of Lafayette in Lafayette Parish.

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

Harper v. State of Nebraska · filed 2024-03-15(b)(1), (b)(2)

Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that his claims arose outside this district, and that venue thus does not lie in this district under Section 1391(b)(2). The facts alleged also do not suggest that venue is proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(1) based on the residence of any other defendant whom Plaintiff may intend to sue in connection with his allegedly unlawful imprisonment.

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

Walker v. Masters · filed 2024-03-22(b)

In light of the allegations in the Complaint, the Court concludes that no Defendants reside in the Northern District of California and that none (much less a substantial part) of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted in the Complaint occurred in the Northern District of California.

Section 1391(b) requires facts showing that a defendant resides in the district or that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there.

Iseli v. The State of California · filed 2024-03-25(b)

None of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claims are alleged to have occurred in either San Diego or Imperial County, and no Defendant is alleged to reside here. ... Therefore, Plaintiff has not adequately plead that venue is proper in the Southern District of California.

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 another district is available.

Johnson v. Regional Supplemental Services Inc · filed 2024-03-25(b)

This District appears to fit none of those conditions.

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

(PC) Davenport v. State of California's State and Communities Correction Board · filed 2024-04-01(b)

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

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

Fishback v. Warren County Fiscal Court · filed 2024-04-10(b)

A plaintiff must file a civil rights action in a district where one defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state, or in a district where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Independent of residence, nearly all of the operative events described in Fishback’s complaint occurred in Warren County, Kentucky. ... This case therefore should have been filed in the Western District of Kentucky.

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

Lawson v. City of St Albans, WV · filed 2024-04-11(b)

In the instant matter, Plaintiff has named Defendants located in the Southern District of West Virginia. Plus, Plaintiff has alleged events which appear to have taken place entirely in the Southern District of West Virginia. Under these statutes, then, venue is proper in the Southern District of West Virginia.

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

Marshall v. Rewerts · filed 2024-04-15(b)

Because Defendants are located in the Western District and the complaint concerns events arising there, venue is not proper in this district. The case will be transferred to the Western District of Michigan, where venue is proper.

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

Palmer v. Norfolk Sheriff · filed 2024-04-16(b)(1), (b)(2)

Federal civil actions may be brought in the judicial district where the Defendant resides or the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2). As all defendants reside in Virginia and all alleged acts appear to have occurred in Norfolk Virginia, venue properly lies in the Eastern District of Virginia, and not Seattle, Washington.

Section 1391 permits venue where the defendants reside and treats an entity defendant as residing in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the action.

Bigley v. Alight State College · filed 2024-04-23(b), (c)

In the instant matter, Plaintiff has named Defendants located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Under these statutes, then, venue is proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(b)(1)–(2) permits an action to be brought in a district where the defendant has its principal place of business and key events in the dispute occurred.

Russell v. Titanium LLC · filed 2024-04-11(b)(1)–(2)

Here, this case could have been brought in the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(1)–(2). Defendant’s principal place of business is in Rancho Cucamonga, California, and as outlined in supra Part II, a number of key events relevant to this dispute took place in California.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) do not permit venue in a district where the defendant does not reside and the claims arose elsewhere.

Pittman v. Fulton County Police Department · filed 2024-04-18(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because it appears from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff’s claims arose outside this district and involve a non-resident of this district, venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) make venue improper where the defendants do not reside in the district and the claims arose outside it.

Pittman v. State of Georgia · filed 2024-04-18(b)(1)-(2)

Because it appears from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff’s claims arose outside this district and involve parties who do not reside in this district, venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Pittman v. Allen · filed 2024-04-24(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because it appears from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff’s claims arose outside this district and involve parties who do not reside in this district, venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Gray 651805 v. Glenn · filed 2024-04-25(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) requires facts supporting venue in the chosen district, such as a defendant’s residence or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

Emrit v. Combs · filed 2024-04-29(b)

Upon such review, the Court finds that, as explained in more detail by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff has not provided any allegations that would support a finding that venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

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

Lorch v. Olmstead · filed 2024-04-26(b)(1)-(2)

Thus, under Section 1391(b)(1)-(2), the Middle District of Florida appears to be a proper venue for this action.

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.

Pittman v. Clayton County Jail · filed 2024-05-02(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because it appears from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff’s claims arose outside this district and involve a non-resident of this district, venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

Owens v. Hill · filed 2024-04-30(b)(1)–(2)

Because all defendants named in the Amended Complaint 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)(1) and (b)(2) permit venue based on where defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Williams v. City of Louisville Police Dept. · filed 2024-05-01(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants are employed in Louisville Kentucky, 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)(1) and (2) make venue improper in a district where the defendants are located elsewhere and the alleged events occurred elsewhere.

Willimas v. Louisville Metro Detention Center · filed 2024-05-08(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants are employed in Louisville Kentucky, 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) does not make a district a proper venue when no defendant resides there, no substantial part of the events occurred there, and another proper district is available.

Kennedy (PS) v. Avanti Residential, LLC · filed 2024-05-09(b)

First, defendants do not reside in Nevada. Second, the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) provides no connection to this District with respect to the events alleged. Instead, the allegations are centered in the District of Colorado. Plaintiff alleges all events occurred while she was residing at Forum Fitzsimmons, which is in Aurora, Colorado. ECF No. 1-1. Because the District of Colorado is an appropriate venue, the Court does not turn to the third venue factor. Therefore, none of the statutory provisions renders the District of Nevada a proper venue for this case.

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

Wynn v. Harris · filed 2024-05-09(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district, that the subject property is located in this district, or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claim arose in this district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1) or (2). Plaintiff’s claims arose in Lunenberg County, which is located in the Eastern District of Virginia. 28 U.S.C. § 127(a). Accordingly, venue lies in the Eastern District of Virginia, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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

(PC) Estes v. Vaca · filed 2024-05-14(b)

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

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

Scott v. Thicklen · filed 2024-05-16(b)

Scott has not established that the Southern District of Mississippi is a proper venue under Section 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) make venue improper where the defendants’ residence is not shown and the alleged events occurred in another district.

Alexander v. Groder · filed 2024-05-20(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants are employed in Nassau County, and the alleged events occurred in Nassau 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) requires the filing district to satisfy at least one of its grounds for proper venue.

King v. Carolinas Biofeedback Center (Biofeedback, LLC) · filed 2024-05-21(b)

On April 30, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina for all further proceedings because the District of South Carolina does not satisfy any of the subsections of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) for venue to be proper in this Court. ... Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 5), and the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina for further handling.

Section 1391(b) does not support venue in a district where no defendant appears to reside and no event or omission giving rise to the claim is alleged to have occurred.

Smith v. Psp Troop K Media · filed 2024-05-24(b)

Here, all of the parties appear to be located in Pennsylvania and, as pleaded, there is no allegation that any relevant events or omissions giving rise to this case occurred in this District.

Section 1391(b) did not support venue in a district where no alleged events occurred and the named officers were alleged to work elsewhere.

Covial v. Francillion · filed 2024-05-28(b)(1)–(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claims of false arrest arose in Manhattan, the Defendants are alleged to be employed as police officers in Manhattan,1 and Plaintiff does not allege that the events or omissions underlying his claim arose in this judicial district, venue does not appear to be proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1)(2).

Section 1391(b) requires allegations connecting the district to the defendants’ residence, the events giving rise to the claim, or the statute’s fallback basis for venue.

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. Roberts · filed 2024-05-29(b)

Upon review for clear error, the Court finds that, as explained in more detail by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff has not provided any allegations that would support a finding that venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Section 1391(b) requires allegations connecting the defendants or a substantial part of the events or omissions to the district where the action is filed.

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. Rubublic of Cuba, Embassy of Cuba in United States, The · filed 2024-05-29(b)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), ... Upon review for clear error, the Court finds that, as explained in more detail by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff has not provided any allegations that would support a finding that venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

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.

Preston v. Bonn · filed 2024-06-04(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants perform their official duties in Ionia County, and because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims took place in Ionia County, venue is not proper in this district.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; events in another district of the same state do not establish venue in the chosen district.

Vernon v. Lark · filed 2024-06-11(b)

While Plaintiff alleges that a substantial part of the events occurred in Louisiana, all of these events occurred in Bienville Parish, which is within the geographical boundaries of the Western District of Louisiana. Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

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

Mercer v. Hudtari · filed 2024-06-20(b)

Relevant here, the statute provides that a civil action may be brought in (i) a judicial district in which any defendant resides; or (ii) 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). ... 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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

Dillard v. Calm Water Counseling · filed 2024-06-27(b)

The occurrences giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims happened in Idaho—his claims center on revocation of probation or supervised release for his failure to comply with an order issued in his criminal case requiring Plaintiff to attend counseling services while residing in Idaho. Nothing in the record shows that a change of venue is appropriate.

Section 1391 permits venue for a civil rights claim where the defendants reside or where the claim arose.

Rivera v. Unknown Allred Unit CASE TRANSFERRED TO THE ND/TX · filed 2024-07-08

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 defendant resides and the events at issue occurred.

MERCHANTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. PIRONE · filed 2024-07-09(b)

the Court finds venue properly lies with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because Pirone resides in this District and because the events at issue (specifically Pirone’s misrepresentations) are alleged to have occurred within this District.

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

Schoppenhorst, Steve v. Schlutz, Bill · filed 2024-07-09(b)

Schoppenhorst’s complaint also makes clear that venue is improper in this district, for the same reasons that the court lacks personal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The proper venue for this case is the District of Alaska, where the defendants reside and where the events giving rise to this case occurred.

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

Robinson v. Locust · filed 2024-07-10(b)

Venue is clearly proper in the District of Nebraska as the defendant is located in this district and the events that are the subject of the Complaint occurred here. As such, the Court finds that a change in venue is not warranted.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in a district where the defendant resides or where the claims arose.

Daker v. Barnes · filed 2024-07-11(b)

As is relevant here, a district court may only grant relief against a defendant for whom venue is proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Venue is proper if an action is brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides or in which the claims arose. Id. ... Tattnall County is in the Southern District of Georgia, but Daker brought this action in the Northern District of Georgia, where venue was improper.

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.

Robinson v. Brinegar · filed 2024-07-09(b)

Venue is clearly proper in the District of Nebraska as Defendant is located in this district and the events that are the subject of the Complaint occurred here. As such, the court finds that a change in venue is not warranted.

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

Bridges v. Warden of Stiles Unit · filed 2024-07-19

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. The claims which form the basis of plaintiff’s complaint occurred at the Stiles Unit which is located in Jefferson County, Texas. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 124, Jefferson County is located in the Eastern District of Texas. As a result, venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas.

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.

Lettieri v. Garver · filed 2024-07-26(b)

Further, as with prior complaints Plaintiff filed in this district, venue is patently improper here.

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

Debose v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP · filed 2024-07-30(b)

None of the three grounds for venue under Section 1391(b) is applicable here. ... Accordingly, venue is improper in this district.

Section 1391(b) permits a § 1983 suit in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Davison v. Bailey · filed 2024-07-31(b)

The allegations associated with Claim 1 concern Hill Correctional Center, which is in Knox County, Illinois. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides that suits filed under § 1983 may be brought only in (1) the judicial district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. Knox County falls within the jurisdiction of the Central District of Illinois, 28 U.S.C. § 93(b), so the Court finds it appropriate to transfer Plaintiff’s allegations in Claim 1 to the Central District of Illinois 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, subject to its fallback rule.

Brinker v. The Kraft Heinz Foods Company · filed 2024-08-01(b)

Therefore, it cannot be said that the Northern District of Illinois is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. Additionally, Defendant has failed to establish venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois as its place of residence.

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

Kern v. Turner · filed 2024-08-02(b)(2)

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

Section 1391 permits venue where the defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; a corporate defendant resides where it is subject to personal jurisdiction in the action.

DeMatteo v. Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc. · filed 2024-07-29(b)(1)–(2), (c)(2)

Here, as I have ruled above, Walgreens is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Connecticut pursuant to Connecticut’s long-arm statute. And because there is no showing that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to DeMatteo’s claim against Walgreens took place in Connecticut, there is no proper venue in Connecticut.

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

Hundal v. Petrosian · filed 2024-08-06(b)(1), (b)(2)

Venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(1) based on the residence of Defendants because all defendants are not residents of this district. Venue is also not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(2) because Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to her claims took place in West Hollywood, California, outside this 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.

(PC) Wilson v. Castro · filed 2024-08-07(b)(1)–(2)

Relevant here, venue is proper in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located” or where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the calm occurred. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)(2). The named Defendants in this action are all employees of Kern Valley State Prison or contractors working at Kern Valley State Prison, and the events of which Plaintiff complains occurred at Kern Valley State Prison. (See generally Doc. No. 1). Kern Valley State Prison, which is located in Kern County, is within the Fresno Division of this Court. See Local Rule 120(d) (E.D. Cal. 2023). Therefore, venue is proper in the Fresno Division of this Court but not in the Sacramento Division.

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

(HC) Thomas v. Horn · filed 2024-08-13(b)(2)

In this case, the petitioner is challenging a resentencing hearing held on his conviction in Ventura County, which is 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) permits venue where the defendants reside or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Iseli v. State of California · filed 2024-08-14(b)

The Court also dismisses this action because this Court is not the proper venue for ... his action.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper for claims arising entirely from events in another state when no basis for venue in the district is shown.

Kristich v. United States of America · filed 2024-08-14(b)

This Court is not the appropriate venue for claims that concern events that occurred entirely in Arizona. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Hamilton v. Jamaica · filed 2024-08-15(b)(1), (b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, see § 1391(b)(1), (2), and, in the interest of justice, this Court transfers this action to that court, see § 1406(a).

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

Pegues v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2024-08-16(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. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(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) permits venue in a district where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Brown-Pegues 718467 v. Washington · filed 2024-08-16(b)

The determination of the proper venue for a civil action in federal court is generally governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Relevant here, the statute provides that a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides; or (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. ... Because there is no apparent basis for venue to lie in this district, but the facts 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 permits venue in a judicial district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred or where the defendant resides.

Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Ednas & Tammys LLC · filed 2024-08-28(b)(1)-(2), (c)(2)

The Court further finds venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district and Edna’s is located in this judicial district.

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

(HC) Guzman v. People of the State of California · filed 2024-09-06(b)

In this case, the petitioner is challenging a conviction from San Bernardino County, which is 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)(1) and (2) permit 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.

Miliano v. Best Care Inc. · filed 2024-09-09(b)(1), (2)

Because Defendant reside in Suffolk County, and the alleged underlying events occurred in Suffolk 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) do not permit venue in a district where the defendants do not reside and the alleged events did not occur.

Scott v. Trotman · filed 2024-09-09(b)(1), (2)

Because Defendants reside in Suffolk County, and the alleged underlying events occurred in Suffolk 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) permits venue where a defendant resides, subject to its residency requirements, or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

SRS Distribution Inc v. Achten Quality Roofing Inc · filed 2024-09-09(b)(1), (b)(2)

Further, venue in the Western District of Washington is proper because AQR is based in Tacoma, Washington and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Tacoma.

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

Owens v. Brown · filed 2024-09-10(b)

Because 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) permits venue where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events occurred; its fallback provision applies only when neither ground supplies a district.

Stueben v. Meade · filed 2024-09-12(b)

Venue in this district is therefore improper under the first two prongs of the statute, but proper in South Carolina under either prong for plaintiff’s claims, and under the second prong for Hodge’s counterclaims. In turn, the availability of a proper venue in South Carolina precludes any application of the third prong to this district.

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

Mckenzie v. Brown · filed 2024-09-12(b)

Thus, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, not this court, is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1). In addition, because Plaintiff alleges that the events that are the bases for her claims occurred in St. Albans, Queens County, New York (ECF 1, at 5), which also lies within the Eastern District of New York, see § 112(c), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is also a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2). As Plaintiff does not allege that any of the events that are the bases for her claims occurred within this judicial district, this court is not a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

(PC) Hill v. Haroing · filed 2024-09-17(b)

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

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

(PC) Hill v. Millet · filed 2024-09-17(b)

In this case, the defendants are located and the claim arose in Napa 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 and the events did not occur when another district is available.

Johnson v. CNY Regional Market · filed 2024-09-18(b)

As such, Johnson has failed to establish that venue is proper in the District of Hawaiʻi. ... This action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for improper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

(PC) Goodwin v. Gomez · filed 2024-09-19(b)

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

Section 1391(b)(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.

Holt v. Gray Television Inc · filed 2024-09-20(b)(1)-(2)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2), venue is proper “(1) in a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of [that] State”; or in “(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the event or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred[.]” ... Therefore, Plaintiff has not met his burden showing that the Northern District of Alabama is a proper venue for this action.

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.

Robinson v. Omaha Corrections Center · filed 2024-09-23(b)

Thus, venue is clearly proper in the District of Nebraska as the Defendants are located in this district and the events that are the subject of the Complaint occurred here.

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

Tay v. City of Tulsa · filed 2024-09-23(b)

Venue is improper when a case fails to meet one of the categories outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Here, venue is clearly not proper. All Defendants besides President Biden reside in Oklahoma. Plaintiff also resides in Oklahoma, and the cause of action alleged by Plaintiff occurred in Oklahoma. Plaintiff does not allege that any events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Utah.

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

Maltese v. Heastie · filed 2024-09-24(b)(1), (b)(2)

In her complaint and subsequent submissions, Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district, or that any of the events giving rise to this action occurred here. Accordingly, venue is not proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) or (2).

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

(PS) Murphy v. Oakland Unified School District · filed 2024-09-27(b)

In this case, the claims arose in Alameda County, California, which is in the Northern District of California. ... Both are located within the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff's case should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern 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 claims occurred.

Smith v. Schuyler · filed 2024-09-27(b)

In any event, the proper venue for Plaintiff’s proposed claims is the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where those defendants and the events giving rise to those claims occurred.

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.

Diaz v. Drug Enforcement Agency · filed 2024-10-01(b)

Venue under Section 1391(b)(1) is therefore proper in both this District and the Eastern District of New York. Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Brooklyn, venue is also proper in the Eastern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) requires all defendants to reside in the same state for residence-based venue, or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims to occur in the district for event-based venue.

Greenwood v. American Kennel Club · filed 2024-10-04(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, this District is not a proper venue under Section 1391(b)(1) because all defendants are not residents of New York. This District also is not a proper venue under Section 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims ... did not occur in a county within this District.

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

Moon v. Leon · filed 2024-10-09(b)

Venue is in the judicial district where either all defendants reside or where the claim arose. Al-Muhaymin v. Jones, 895 F.2d 1147, 1148 (6th Cir. 1990); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Venue for plaintiff’s lawsuit is not proper in the Eastern District of Michigan, because plaintiff has failed to allege that any of the acts, events, or omissions which form the basis of his lawsuit took place in this district.

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

Wilson v. Davis - TWU Local 100 · filed 2024-10-09(b)(1), (2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that the events underlying his claims occurred in this district, or that any defendant resides in this district, there is nothing in the complaint suggesting that venue is proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

Section 1391(b)(1) does not establish venue in a district when all defendants do not reside in its state, and Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Rogers v. Gates · filed 2024-10-10(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because all defendants do not reside in the State of New York, and because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Atlanta, 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) permits venue where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Jefferson v. Brown · filed 2024-10-15(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, under Section 1391(b)(1), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is the only proper venue for this action. In addition, because Plaintiff alleges that the events that are the bases for his claims also occurred in Hollis, Queens County, New York (ECF 1, at 5), in the Eastern District of New York, see § 112(c), and not in this judicial district, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and not this court, is also the only proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

(PC) Hill v. Morgan · filed 2024-10-16(b)

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

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

Falwell v. Chapman · filed 2024-10-16(b)

Thus, the requirements for proper venue under § 1391(b) have not been met in the present case.

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

Zinman v. Wright · filed 2024-10-18(b)

In this case, the defendant(s) are located, and the claim arose in Ventura 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) determines proper venue by considering the defendant’s residence, where the events occurred, and whether another district is available.

Roberts v. City of Dallas · filed 2024-10-21(b)

Moreover and more importantly, Roberts’ arguments do not address the fundamental venue issues in this case— namely, that the City of Dallas is not resident in Hawai‘, that the underlying events principally occurred outside of this District, and that there is an alternate venue in which this case could have been properly brought.? See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Dkt. No. 4 at 3-6; Dkt. No. 1 at 2, 4-6.

Section 1391(b) permits a § 1983 action in a district where the defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Johnson v. Officer Ponticello · filed 2024-10-24(b)

Therefore, under Section 1391, this action may be heard in a venue where the defendant resides (Syracuse, New York), or in the venue where the issue substantially arose (Syracuse, New York) – both of which appear to be located in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.

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

Quintero v. Hill · filed 2024-10-29(b)

Plaintiff has failed to show that any of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims in his Eastern District cases are alleged to have occurred in either San Diego or Imperial County, nor that any Defendant in those cases is alleged to reside here, or that any events are common to all of Plaintiff’s cases.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where none of the alleged events occurred and the plaintiff has not alleged that all defendants reside in the state.

Nwosu v. Accor Management US Inc. · filed 2024-10-30(b)

However, Nwosu has failed to allege proper venue in this District, because all of the alleged events took place in the District of Columbia, and Nwosu has not alleged that all Defendants reside in New York.

Section 1391 does not make Delaware a proper venue when no defendant is a Delaware citizen, no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there, and no property at issue is there.

Corbin v. Hilco Merchant Resources LLC · filed 2024-11-01

Venue in the District of Delaware is not appropriate under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, where no Defendant is a citizen of Delaware; no substantial part of the events giving rise to the Plaintiffs’ claim occurred in Delaware; and there is no property in Delaware that is the subject of the action.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; speculation about where communications took place does not establish venue.

Timberlake-Campbell v. Momence Meadows Nursing and Rehabilitation LLC · filed 2024-10-29(b)(1)–(2)

Momence Meadows does not reside in the Northern District of Illinois, so venue cannot be based on § 1391(b)(1). ... There is nothing to show that a “substantial” portion of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this district. Venue is not proper under § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where the defendants and the events underlying the suit are located.

Sheppard v. Crasper · filed 2024-11-08

Accordingly, Sheppard, the defendants, and the underlying events are all within the Western District, making that district the proper venue for this case. See 28 U.S.C. §1391.

Section 1391(b)(1) requires all defendants to reside in the forum state, while (b)(2) looks to where a substantial part of the events occurred; the plaintiff’s residence does not establish venue.

JAMAR-MAMON X v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC. · filed 2024-11-08(b)(1), (b)(2)

Although Plaintiff alleges that he currently resides in this District, a plaintiff’s residence is not relevant to the venue analysis under Section 1391.

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

Bradley v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2024-11-12(b)(1), (b)(2)

Plaintiff does not allege that a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying her claims arose in this District or that any defendant resides in this District. Venue is therefore not proper in this Court under section 1391(b)(1) or (2).

Section 1391(b) does not provide venue where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the events occurred if another district provides venue.

Johnson v. Brill · filed 2024-11-15(b)

Subsection (1) is inapplicable because the defendants are not residents of Massachusetts. Subsection (2) does not support venue here because the alleged events giving rise to Johnson’s claims did not occur in Massachusetts. Rather, they occurred within the District of Colorado. Because venue exists in the District of Colorado, subsection (3) does not apply.

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

(PC) Mouzon v. Alameda County · filed 2024-11-18(b)

Here, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint names only “Alameda County” as defendant, and alleges constitutional violations in Alameda County, which is located in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Venue is no longer proper in this district in light of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint.

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue in the plaintiff’s district of residence when the defendants live elsewhere and the complaint alleges no connection between the dispute and that district.

Bonton v. Fluker · filed 2024-11-19(b)

And, beyond plaintiff’s current residence in Aloha, Oregon, there is no indication that this dispute bears any connection to the forum state. Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated that venue here is proper, or that personal jurisdiction exists in relation to defendants.

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

Marshall v. Splunge · filed 2024-11-20(b)

And even if Plaintiff had stated a claim, as presented, this matter presents no connection to the District of Columbia. 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) 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) 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). All parties appear to be located in Alabama, and there is absolutely no indication that the alleged events or omissions occurred in this District.

Section 1391(b) identifies proper venues based on a defendant’s residence, where a substantial part of the events or property at issue is located, or, when neither basis provides a venue, personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Hooli v. Combs · filed 2024-11-20(b)

The general federal venue statute establishes three categories under which venue is proper in a civil action in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... In this case, the District of Columbia is not the proper venue under any of these statutory provisions.

Section 1391(b) permits a civil action 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.

Johnson v. Family · filed 2024-11-20(b)

Judge Duffin also properly recommended dismissal for improper venue. The federal venue statute provides that a civil action may be brought in the judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State where the district is located, or in the judicial district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Given the facts set forth in the complaint, Judge Duffin’s determination that the Northern District of New York is the proper venue for this matter was correct.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on defendants’ residence or where a substantial part of the events occurred, with a fallback when no other district is available.

Marshall v. Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram · filed 2024-11-20(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). All of the parties appear to be located in Alabama, and there is absolutely no indication that any of the alleged events or omissions occurred in this District.

Section 1391(b) requires facts showing that a district is a proper venue, such as a defendant’s residence there or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurring there.

Carr v. Eastland County Criminal Justice System · filed 2024-11-22(b)

The Amended Complaint, however, does not contain any factual allegations showing that Defendants reside in New Mexico or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in New Mexico. The Court concludes that the District of New Mexico is not the proper venue for this action.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district with no alleged connection to the defendant or the events when both are located in another district.

Mitchell v. Home · filed 2024-11-26(b)

As an initial matter, this Court is not a proper venue for Mitchell’s claims against Chief Home. Federal statute provides that a civil action may be brought in (1) “a judicial district in which any defendant resides,” (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 where the action may otherwise be brought . . . , any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Chief Home is in Cleveland, Texas, at the Bell Unit, and the relevant events took place there. Cleveland is in Liberty County, which is in the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division. 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(2). Mitchell does not plead any facts against Chief Home with a connection to the Southern District of Texas.

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

McDaniel v. State of North Carolina · filed 2024-11-27(b)

Moreover, this matter presents no connection to the District of Columbia. 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 in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated), or (3) in a district in which 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); see also id. § 1406(a) (providing for transfer or dismissal for improper venue). None of the parties is located in this District, and none of the acts or omissions allegedly giving rise to this case occurred here either.

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.

Etuk v. Camba, Inc. · filed 2024-12-04(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, under Section 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in this District and the Eastern District of New York. Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Kings and Queens Counties, venue under Section 1391(b)(2) is also proper in the Eastern District of New York.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events occurred; its fallback option applies only when the action cannot be brought in another district.

COLBERT v. OGILVIE · filed 2024-12-16(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 judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated”; or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. ... And because there is a district in which this action may be brought—namely, the District of Massachusetts—the third option is unavailable. Accordingly, venue is improper in this District.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) do not permit venue in a district when the defendant’s alleged business and the events giving rise to the claim are in another district.

Gambal v. Finest Automotive Recovery · filed 2024-12-11(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendant does business in Staten Island and Brooklyn, and the alleged events occurred in Staten Island, 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 that state, or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

MacDonald v. Secretary Department of Corrections · filed 2024-12-18(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants are located in Florida and the alleged events occurred in Florida, 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 any defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Martin v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections · filed 2024-12-26(b)(1)–(2)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2), venue is proper in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides” or “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” ... Here, the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim took place in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, and that is presumably where Defendants reside. Thus, venue is proper in that district.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendant does not reside, no substantial part of the claim arose, and the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction.

Malley v. Cordier · filed 2024-12-31(b)

Section 1391 provides three alternative pathways to establishing proper venue, none of which apply here.

Section 1391(b) does not establish venue based on the plaintiff’s residence when the defendant resides elsewhere, the events occurred elsewhere, and another district is available.

Malley v. Farias · filed 2024-12-31(b)

Section 1391 provides three alternative pathways to establishing proper venue, none of which apply here. ... Here, venue is not proper under § 1391(b)(1) in any district in Wisconsin because Farias resides in California. ... Here, venue is not appropriate in any district in Wisconsin because all of the events giving rise to Malley’s claim took place in California. ... Here, there is at least one other district in which this action could be brought; namely, the California district in which Farias resides or the events giving rise to this action took place.

Section 1391 requires a plaintiff to allege facts showing that venue is proper in the chosen district.

Scott v. State of Texas · filed 2025-01-02

Even on appeal, Scott fails to allege venue is proper in the Northern District of Oklahoma under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district with no connection to the parties or alleged events when the events occurred in another district.

(PS) Logan v. Food 4 Less · filed 2025-01-03(b)

None of the parties, nor any of the facts alleged in the complaint, relate to the Eastern District of California. Therefore, plaintiffs case 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 with no connection to the parties or the events alleged in the complaint.

Ernest Godfrey Logan, Jr. v. Food 4 Less · filed 2025-01-03(b)

None of the parties, nor any of the facts alleged in the complaint, relate to the Eastern District of California. Therefore, plaintiffs case should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b) requires a district to satisfy one of its venue grounds; its fallback ground applies only when no district otherwise qualifies.

Moran v. Hard Rock Hotel and Casino Atlantic City · filed 2025-01-06(b)

Plaintiffs therefore have not met §§ 1391(b)(1) and (2)’s requirements and cannot meet § 1391(b)(3)’s requirements because Plaintiffs cannot show that there is no district in which this lawsuit could otherwise be brought under the law.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue where a defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state; subsection (b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events occurred or the property at issue is situated.

Nyamusevya v. State Of Ohio · filed 2025-01-07(b)(1), (2)

So, venue is not proper in the Northern District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). This leaves 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... Not only, then, is the property at issue in this claim not in the Northern District of Illinois, but only a minority of the events arguably giving rise to this action took place there. In short, venue is not proper in the Northern District of Illinois.

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

Williams v. Peterson · filed 2025-01-08(b)

Given that the Defendants appear to reside in the District of Colorado and the events giving rise to this action occurred within that District, the venue of this action is properly laid in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district with no qualifying defendant residence or substantial connection to the events when another district is a proper venue.

Krizek v. The Queens Medical Center · filed 2025-01-08(b)

Venue is not proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York because Plaintiff does not allege (1) that all Defendants reside in the State of New York and that at least one Defendant resides in this District, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1); or (2) that a “substantial part of the events or omissions” underlying her claim arose in this District, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. Musk · filed 2025-01-13(b)

Regardless, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b).

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

(PS) Hollywood v. Macomber · filed 2025-01-27(b)

For the reasons outlined below, the Court will transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California because venue is not proper in this 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.

In re: Jane Doe · filed 2025-01-27(b)(1), (b)(2)

Thus, under Section 1391(b)(1), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and not this court, is a proper venue for this action. In addition, because Jane Doe seems to allege that the events that are the bases for her claims occurred in Coram, within the Eastern District of New York, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and not this court, is also a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Hollywood v. Macomber · filed 2025-01-27(b)

Therefore, because this case is based on events that occurred in Los Angeles and Riverside and the responding Defendants are in these areas, 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 a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Pittman v. Mangano · filed 2025-01-29(b)

A civil action must be filed in the judicial district in which any defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

(PC) Gallegos v. Bruce · filed 2025-02-04(b)(1), (b)(2)

From the face of the first amended complaint, it is clear that, under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2), this Court is not a proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims for actions that took place at SVSP.

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

Shenzhen Zhifu Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Core Home Fitness, L.L.C. · filed 2025-02-05(b)

As is discussed above, Defendant is not subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Illinois; therefore, venue is not proper under section 1391(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3). Section (b)(3) is also inapplicable for the additional reason that this action could have been brought in the Northern District of Ohio where Defendant has its principal place of business and has conducted all of its patent enforcement activity.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides, no substantial part of the alleged events occurred, and the action can be brought in another district.

Johnson v. Gagliano · filed 2025-02-06(b)

Subsection (1) is not met. The parties all 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 and/or a Colorado criminal proceeding. Subsection (3) does not apply. It appears Plaintiff can file an action in the Colorado Federal Court.

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

Wadsworth v. Ackert · filed 2025-02-12(b)

Lastly, the Eastern District of Michigan is the wrong venue for Plaintiff to bring this action. Venue in a civil action is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Wayne M Fournerat Esquire v. Deguisti · filed 2025-02-14(b)

The proper venue for this action is dictated by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which provides that venue lies 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.”

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

Saunders Jr v. NYC Health and Hospital · filed 2025-02-15(b)

Venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) which provides that an action may be brought in the “judicial district in which any defendant resides,” or “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.” ... Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transfer this action, in the interest of justice, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

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

Collins v. Barehill Correctional Facility · filed 2025-02-19(b)(1)-(2)

... (2) the Defendants are located at Barehill, and (3) Plaintiff does not allege that the events or omissions underlying his claim arose in this judicial district, venue does not appear to be proper in this Court under § 1391(b)(1)(2).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where the defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; its fallback provision applies only if neither ground provides a district where the action may be brought.

GE Renewable North America, LLC v. SKF USA Inc. · filed 2025-02-07(b)(1)-(3)

Because SFK does not reside in New York, venue would be improper in New York under 28 U.S.C § 1391(b)(1). Further, the negotiations for Addendum Two occurred in in Schenectady, New York, which is in the Northern District of New York, and not in this district. (ECF 44 ¶ 6.) The Court, therefore, agrees that venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as a “substantial” part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the Northern District of New York and not in this district. As its possible for this action to be brought pursuant to sections 1391(b)(1) and (2), section 1391(b)(3) does not apply.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on a defendant’s residence or substantial events in the district, with a fallback when no other district is available.

Henderson v. Bernard · filed 2025-05-12(b)

Subsection (1) is not met. All parties reside in Georgia, and it is not clear this Court has personal jurisdiction over any Defendant. ... None of the alleged wrongdoing occurred in New Mexico. ... Subsection (3) does not apply because Plaintiff can file an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

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

Smith v. Biden · filed 2025-05-12(b)

Subsection (1) is inapplicable because the defendants do not reside in the same state. Subsection (2) does not support venue in the District of Massachusetts because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims did not occur in the District of Massachusetts. Because venue exists in the Middle District of Florida, subsection (3) is irrelevant.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where none of its grounds for venue is met.

Greene v. San Diego County · filed 2025-05-12(b)

See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). None of those requirements are present here.

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.

Brown v. Martino · filed 2025-05-12(b)

Thus, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in the Western District of Michigan, and transfer to the Western District is in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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

Greene v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles · filed 2025-05-13(b)

See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). None of those requirements are present here.

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

Greene v. Garland County, Arkansas · filed 2025-05-16(b)

Plaintiff does not claim that any of the parties reside in the Eastern District of Missouri, or that any part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred here. None of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) are present in this case.

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

Moore v. City of Baltimore · filed 2025-05-16(b)

Under the general venue statute, 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 (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). ... The District of Maryland, where Plaintiff and some Defendants reside, and where the claims arose, is a district where venue is proper for all of Plaintiff’s claims.

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

Friedeberg v. Both Sacred Heart Churches of Norwich · filed 2025-05-20(b)(1), (b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the District of Connecticut, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2), and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

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

v. Marion County Small Claims Courts · filed 2025-05-21(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff filed this action regarding events occurring in Indianapolis, Indiana, where Defendant is located, 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) makes venue proper in California when the defendant resides there and the events giving rise to the claim occurred there.

Greene v. St. Vincent De Paul - Cardinal Manning Center · filed 2025-05-22(b)

Defendant resides in California and the events complained of occurred in California. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), ... Under these venue provisions, venue is proper only in California.

Section 1391(b) requires a civil action to be filed in a district that satisfies one of its listed grounds for venue.

Greene v. Salvation Army Bell Shelter · filed 2025-05-28(b)

In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to allege a basis for proper venue. Plaintiff does not claim that Defendant resides in the Eastern District of Missouri, or that any part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred here. None of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) are present in this case.

Section 1391(b) permits a civil action in a district tied to the defendants’ residence or a substantial part of the events, with a personal-jurisdiction option if neither is available.

Oliver v. Garrette · filed 2025-06-03(b)

Unless a different federal law provides otherwise, federal general venue statute 28 U.S.C. § 1391 governs the proper venue of any civil action brought in federal court. ... Oliver’s complaint has no connection with the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. ... Oliver’s Bivens action should have been brought in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

Macbagito v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP · filed 2025-06-03(b)(1), (b)(2)

Even if venue could be considered proper in this District under either Section 1391(b)(1) or (2), because a substantial part of events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Annapolis, Maryland, and because Defendants, by hiring Plaintiff in Maryland, likely subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of Maryland courts, venue is also proper in the District of Maryland under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district where no defendant resides and no events giving rise to the claims occurred when another district is available.

Crist v. Stiverson · filed 2025-06-05(b)

No Defendant resides in this district; Plaintiff has not demonstrated or asserted that any events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred in this district; and there is another judicial district where his action may otherwise have been brought (the District Court for the Western District of Michigan, where Defendants are located and the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred).

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.

(PC) Silva v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 2025-06-06(b)

In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district and the claims arose in San Francisco County.

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

Grundstein v. Maine Board of Bar Examiners · filed 2025-06-10(b)(1)–(2)

Here, Plaintiff does not allege that any Defendant resides in Vermont. The only connection to Vermont is Plaintiff’s choice to take the Maine bar exam remotely. Defendants’ actions that allegedly gave rise to Plaintiff’s claims all occurred outside of Vermont. The Court therefore finds that venue in this judicial district is not proper, and the motion to dismiss for improper venue is GRANTED.

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.

Edge v. ShopRite Corporation · filed 2025-06-10(b)(1), (b)(2)

Accordingly, because ShopRite does not appear to reside in this district, and the alleged events occurred in Norwich, Connecticut, 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, subject to its residency condition, or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the suit occurred.

Attaway v. Galloway · filed 2025-06-13(b)

Venue is proper in a district court where any defendant resides (if all defendants are residents of the same state in which the district court is located), or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the suit occurred. 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). Shawnee Correctional Center is located in the Southern District of Illinois and no information suggests that either Defendant resides in the Central District of Illinois.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district with no relevant connection to the defendant or the events giving rise to the claim when another district is available.

Greene v. Koreatown Mental Health · filed 2025-06-16(b)

Under these venue provisions, venue is proper only in California.

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

Lee v. Wood County · filed 2025-06-17(b)

While the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Joseph’s assessment of the threadbare allegations in the complaint, it also notes that the case was improperly filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The complaint indicates that all Defendants are located in Wood County and all relevant events took place there. See generally ECF No. 1. Wood County is in the Western District of Wisconsin. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (federal venue appropriate either in judicial district where any defendant resides or a district where substantial part of events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred).