28 U.S.C. § 1391

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

Ricks v. Department of Justice Louisiana State · filed 2025-06-18(b)

In the instant case, the defendants are not alleged to reside in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Further, no part of the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiffs claims occurred within this district.

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

(PC)Prieto v. The State of California · filed 2025-06-25(b)

Here, a review of the complaint reveals that the claims arose out of events at the California State Prison in Lancaster, Los Angeles County, which is in the Central District of California. All defendants are employed at that facility and appear to reside in that district. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b) governs whether an action could originally have been brought in a proposed venue.

OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. LIME CREEK AG TRANSPORT, LLC. · filed 2025-06-27(b)

The parties don’t dispute that this action could have originally been brought in the Albany Division. See [Doc. 13, p. 5]; Internap Corp., 114 F. Supp. 3d at 1339. The Court agrees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendant is based elsewhere and no relevant conduct occurred.

Greene v. IPA · filed 2025-06-27(b)

Plaintiff provides a California-based mailing address for himself and also alleges that Angeles is based in California. Further, it appears that all conduct giving rise to this suit occurred in California. Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Central District of California is the only proper venue for this action.

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

Greene v. Inglewood One Stop · filed 2025-06-30(b)

Additionally, it is clear that venue does not lie in this judicial district. Greene could bring this action in: (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the state where 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, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). None of those requirements are present here.

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

Broadnax v. Newsom · filed 2025-06-30(b)

As pled in the Complaint, no Defendants are located in the Northern District of California, and none of the events at issue giving rise to this action occurred in the Northern District of California. To the extent the Complaint is decipherable, the events giving rise to the claim asserted occurred in the Eastern District of California. Accordingly, venue for this action properly lies in the Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Greene v. Weingart Association - Schrader · filed 2025-07-01(b)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may be brought in: (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which any action may otherwise be brought, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction. Under these venue provisions, venue is proper only in California.

Section 1391(b) makes venue proper in California when the defendant is located there and the events giving rise to the claim occurred there.

Greene v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2025-07-01(b)

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

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) does not establish venue in a district merely because the defendant’s lawyer sent a letter from there, without sufficient contacts or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims.

STERNER v. MCP HOLDINGS CORP. · filed 2025-07-03(b)(1)-(2)

Venue is not proper here under section 1391(b)(1) or (2). MCP Holdings’s only connection with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is the letter its lawyer sent from his Philadelphia office. This limited connection does not show MCP Holdings has continuous contacts allowing general jurisdiction; nor does it show MCP Holdings purposefully directed its activities here allowing specific jurisdiction. ... Venue is improper under section 1391(b)(2) for the same reason: one letter sent by MCP Holdings’s Philadelphia lawyer does not suggest a substantial part of the events giving rise to Mr. Sterner’s claims occurred in this District.

Section 1391 makes venue improper in South Carolina when the individual defendants do not reside there and the events giving rise to the action occurred in Kentucky.

Walters v. United States · filed 2025-07-08(b)

The Magistrate Judge found that South Carolina was not the proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the individual Defendants are not residents of South Carolina and the events– failure to protect allegations against Kentucky prison guards in a Kentucky prison–that gave rise to the action occurred in Kentucky. ... Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, this is action is transferred in the interests of justice to the United States the District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky for further proceedings.

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

Blackwell, Jr. v. Blackwell · filed 2025-07-09(b)

The Court finds that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), both the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of Florida are proper venues for this action.

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

Greene v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2025-07-11(b)

This case does not satisfy any of the statutory venue requirements.

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

Elmilligy v. Mount Olive Township · filed 2025-07-14(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because several of the Defendants are New Jersey residents and the alleged events occurred in New Jersey and Columbia, 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 in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, among other specified districts.

Goodykoontz v. State Of Ohio · filed 2025-07-16(b)

Venue is proper in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) in any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction if there is otherwise no district in which an action may be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Therefore, the Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss without prejudice any Rehabilitation Act claims in the twelfth and eighteenth groups of claims that Plaintiff may be asserting based on alleged actions at CCCC, North Coast Behavioral Health, LORCI, CRC, NCI or MaCI.

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

(PC) Rodriguez v. Nieves · filed 2025-07-17(b)

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

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

(PC) Hickman v. Roberts · filed 2025-07-17(b)

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

Section 1391(b) does not permit claims arising from events in another district to proceed in a forum where no relevant events occurred and no defendant involved in those events resides.

Quintero v. Hill · filed 2025-07-18(b)

To the extent Plaintiff attempts to raise claims in this action for alleged violations of his constitutional rights in the Eastern District, which he has indicated he is pursuing in three civil rights actions filed in that District, on the theory that those violations only took place because he was transferred there from RJD, he may not proceed with such claims in this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) ... Plaintiff has failed to show that any of the events or omissions in the Eastern District have given rise to claims alleged to have occurred in either San Diego or Imperial County, nor that any Defendant involved in the events or omissions while incarcerated in the Eastern District is alleged to reside here, or that any events are common to all of Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where the defendants reside and where the conduct giving rise to the suit occurred.

Maxitransfers LLC v. Envios La Costenita 1 Inc · filed 2025-07-21(b)–(c)

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)–(c) because Envios maintains a principal place of business in this District, Cardenas Garcia resides in this District, and both Envios and Cardenas Garcia transacted business and engaged in the conduct complained of in this District.

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

White, Bijoulette v. Galloway, Timothy · filed 2025-07-24(b)

Without deciding whether venue is proper in this district, the court concludes that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because that is where Galloway contends that he is domiciled and where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district where the defendants do not reside and no substantial part of the events or property at issue is located.

Tate v. Culver & Cain Production · filed 2025-07-25(b)

As noted in the Court’s June 25, 2025 Opinion, Memorandum and Order, because this matter deals with property in Wood County, Texas, venue is improper in this district, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on defendants’ residence, a substantial connection to the claim, or a limited personal-jurisdiction fallback.

Georgils v. Corning Federal Credit Union · filed 2025-07-25(b)

Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause, filed on June 24, 2025, fails to demonstrate that the Eastern District of New York is the proper venue for this case.

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

Nieves v. Aldridge · filed 2025-07-28(b)

Under the alleged facts of this case, this statute does not provide venue in the District of the Massachusetts.

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.

Fernandez v. Fredrickson · filed 2025-07-29(b)(1), (b)(2)

It thus appears that venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida under either Section 1391(b)(1) or (b)(2). There are no allegations in the complaint suggesting that venue is proper in this District.

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

Abdulghani v. United States Medical Licensing Examination · filed 2025-07-29(b)(1), (b)(2)

Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district, or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claim occurred here. From the face of the complaint, therefore, 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, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if no other district is available, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Greene v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2025-07-30(b)

Additionally, venue does not lie in this judicial district. Greene could bring this action in: (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the state where 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, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). None of those requirements are present here.

Section 1391(b) permits venue only in a district that meets one of its three listed grounds.

Grall v. Grall · filed 2025-07-31(b)

The Court finds that this case does not fit into any of the three categories set forth in § 1391(b), and therefore venue in the Central District of Illinois is improper.

Section 1391(b) requires facts supporting venue in the chosen district; a complaint that lacks them may be dismissed with leave to amend.

Oravetz v. Vogel · filed 2025-08-02(b)

No facts support a conclusion that venue in Idaho is appropriate. Plaintiff will be given leave to provide facts supporting proper venue in Idaho over Washington parties in an amended complaint or to voluntarily dismiss this case.

Section 1391(b) requires facts connecting the chosen district to a defendant’s residence, substantial events or property, or, if no other district is available, personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Oravetz v. Sequim Self Storage Units · filed 2025-08-02(b)

No facts support a conclusion that venue in Idaho is appropriate.

Section 1391(b) requires facts showing that the chosen district is a proper venue under one of its listed grounds.

Wondra v. You tube · filed 2025-08-04(b)

No facts support a conclusion that venue in Idaho is appropriate.

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

(PC) Sadowski v. Yang · filed 2025-08-04(b)

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

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

Hawkins-Bivins 941156 v. 68th District Court · filed 2025-08-05(b)

Under the revised venue statute, venue in federal-question cases lies in the district in which any defendant resides or in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The events underlying the complaint occurred in Genesee County. Defendants are public officials serving in Genesee County, and they “reside” in that county for purposes of venue over a suit challenging official acts. See Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U.S. 128, 132 (1885); O’Neill v. Battisti, 472 F.2d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1972). Genesse County is within the geographical boundaries of the Eastern District of Michigan. 28 U.S.C. § 102(a). In these circumstances, venue is proper only in the Eastern District.

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

Van Arsdol v. Charles · filed 2025-08-08(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that the events giving rise to his claims occurred in this District or that Defendant resides in this District, 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 permits venue based on specified connections to the district, including defendants’ residence, relevant events, or a qualifying plaintiff’s residence.

Emrit v. Moore · filed 2025-08-08(b), (e)(1)(C)

Here, there are no allegations in Emrit’s complaint suggesting that the Maryland elected officials named in this action are actually domiciled within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. There are no allegations connecting the claims asserted to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. As for the provisions of Section 1391(e)(1)(C), plaintiff resides in either Florida or Maryland. Emrit’s venue allegations are thus defective in light of the other facts averred in the complaint.

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

(SS)(PS) Logan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-13(b)

Both counties involved are located within the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff's case 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 a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Rozner v. Palmer · filed 2025-08-14(b)

Relevant here, the statute provides that a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides; or (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. ... Because there is no apparent basis for venue to lie in this district, but 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 a civil action in a district tied to the defendant’s residence or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, with a fallback when neither basis provides a district.

Clinton v. Groh · filed 2025-08-18(b)

Section 1391 governs venue for all civil actions brought in federal court. ... None of these circumstances applies in this case. The defendant is a District Court Judge in the Northern District of West Virginia, who does not appear to be a resident of Ohio, and Clinton’s arrest, prosecution, and conviction all occurred in West Virginia. Therefore, the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, not the Northern District of Ohio, would be the proper venue for this case.

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

Smalls v. Kirby Psychiatric Center · filed 2025-08-19(b)(1), (b)(2)

Under Section 1391(b)(1), venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. Venue is also proper in the Eastern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2) because the events giving rise to this claim occurred in Richmond County.

Section 1391(b) requires facts connecting the chosen district to a defendant’s residence, a substantial part of the events or property, or, when no other district qualifies, personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Jones v. Riker's Island · filed 2025-08-20(b)

No facts support a conclusion that venue in Idaho is appropriate. This deficiency cannot be cured by amendment.

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

Lyons v. Sade Capital · filed 2025-08-20(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sade Capital resides in New York, New York, this court is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1). In addition, because Plaintiff’s claims arise from Defendant’s alleged breach of a contract to repair damage to real property in Peachtree Corners, Gwinnet County, Georgia, which lies within the Northern District of Georgia, see 28 U.S.C. § 90(a)(2), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is also a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

DeCastro v. Mcknight · filed 2025-08-21(b)

Ultimately, venue in this Court is not proper under any of the three categories outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) requires a plaintiff to establish a statutory basis for venue in the chosen district.

Aspasia Films LLC v. Quantum Capital · filed 2025-08-25(b)

Plaintiff Lyons did not show that the District of New Mexico is the proper venue for this action, did not show that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants and did not file an amended complaint by the August 20, 2025, deadline.

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

Dobane v. State of New Jersey · filed 2025-08-25(b)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that all defendants reside in the State of New York, venue is not proper in this District under Section 1391(b)(1). ... Because Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting that any of the events giving rise to his claims occurred in this District,2 venue is also not proper here under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Watson v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2025-08-28(b)

The facts of this case and the parties have no connection to the Eastern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s case should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

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

Bravo-Maldonado, Mauricio v. Cimarron Correctional Facility · filed 2025-08-21(b)(1)–(2)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) governs venue for civil rights actions. As relevant here, a plaintiff may bring a civil action 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 “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” Id. § 1391(b)(1)–(2). ... Cimarron resides in Oklahoma. See Dkt. 1 at 2. And it’s clear from the complaint that the events underlying Bravo-Maldonado’s negligence claim occurred in Oklahoma. Any assertion of venue in Wisconsin would be frivolous.

Section 1391(b) permits a civil action in a district connected to a defendant’s residence or a substantial part of the events or property at issue, with a personal-jurisdiction alternative when no other district qualifies.

Greene v. Next Door Medical Network, Inc. · filed 2025-08-22(b)

Plaintiff has not established that venue is proper in this Court. Defendant is located in California and the events complained of occurred in California. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may be brought in: ... Under these venue provisions, venue is proper only in California.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and the claim did not arise.

Emrit v. Musk · filed 2025-08-28(b)

Emrit does not allege that any of the defendants resides in South Dakota, nor does he allege that the claim arose in South Dakota. ... Therefore, even if Emrit did allege a claim upon which relief may be granted, the District of South Dakota is not the proper venue for him to file suit.

Section 1391(b) requires a basis for 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. United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) · filed 2025-08-29(b)

Among other deficiencies, the Court adds that the Complaint fails to allege any reason for why this lawsuit was brought in the District of Hawai‘i. Notably, Emrit does not reside in this State, none of the Defendants are located in this State, and none of the alleged conduct or omissions by Emrit and/or the Defendants are alleged to have taken place in this State.

Section 1391(b) places venue in New York for an estate dispute when a defendant resides there and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there.

Gordon v. Gordon · filed 2025-08-29(b)

On these facts, when one principal defendant resides in New York and “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” occurred in New York, proper venue lies in New York.

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

Fargo v. Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands Department of Labor · filed 2025-09-12(b)

This action fails to satisfy any of the three bases for venue in this district.

Section 1391(b)(1)-(2) permits venue where the defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events or property at issue is located.

Chan v. Bacdayan · filed 2025-09-12(b)(1)-(2)

The Court cannot establish that it has personal jurisdiction over any of the named Defendants15 or determine why the ... Court would be the proper venue for this case when none of the parties appear to be residents of Alaska and the alleged events involve an apartment in Brooklyn, New York.

Section 1391(b) requires a qualifying connection between the chosen district and the defendant, the events or property at issue, or, where no other district is available, personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Kaminski v. State of Oklahoma · filed 2025-09-17(b)

Plaintiff does not state any reason why this Court is the proper venue for her case. She attempts to bring a case before this Court against the State of Oklahoma for events that occurred in Oklahoma. None of the requirements of § 1391 are present here.

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

Duron · filed 2025-09-17(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) 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.

Snider 834248 v. Wendt · filed 2025-09-19(b)

Under the revised venue statute, venue in federal-question cases lies in the district in which any defendant resides or in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Section 1391(b) does not permit a plaintiff to choose a district based on preference when the claims arose in another district.

Shannon O. Murphy, Sr. v. Keller/Postman LLC · filed 2025-09-22(b)

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

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

Medine v. Anothony · filed 2025-09-30(b)

Here, Medine 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. Thus, venue is not proper under section 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides or where the events at issue occurred.

Constable v. McCombre · filed 2025-10-01(b)

Venue for any civil rights claims therefore would be proper in the Eastern District of California and not in this one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (explaining that venue is appropriate in a judicial district where any defendant resides or where the events at issue occurred).

Section 1391(b) does not permit suit in a district unconnected to the defendants or the events giving rise to the claims.

Rossmann v. Faroughi · filed 2025-10-08(b)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In plaintiff’s purported action against defendants in Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD for events or omissions in Washington, DC and/or Baltimore, MD, that means that venue properly lies in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. See 28 U.S.C. § § 88, 100. It does not lie in this court.

Section 1391(b) requires allegations supporting venue in the district where the action is filed.

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. Moore · filed 2025-10-09(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) does not support venue where the defendants neither reside nor acted in the district.

Valentine · filed 2025-10-01(b)

Because Defendants are not alleged to reside in this district, and because none of the underlying events occurred in this district, this court is not a proper venue forthese claims.

Section 1391(b) permits venue based on defendants’ residence, a substantial part of the events or property at issue, or, in limited circumstances, personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Tate · filed 2025-10-17(b)

The Court — after providing Plaintiffs an opportunity to present their views on the issue, see Palmer, 2016 WL 347302, at *3 — finds that venue is improper in this district. As discussed in the 9/16 EO, the Complaint does not allege any basis for venue in Hawai`i.

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

EMRIT · filed 2025-10-23(b)

Moreover, it is clear from a review of the complaint that venue does not lie in this judicia district. See 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). None of the Defendants identified in the complaint are residents of this Commonwealth, nor do Emrit’s allegations suggest that any part of the events or omissions giving rise to his putative claims occurred here.

Section 1391(e) did not make the Eastern District of Pennsylvania a proper venue for claims concerning confinement at FCI Loretto.

GEDEON · filed 2025-10-27(e)

To the extent he seeks relief concerning his confinement at FCI Loretto, venue for that claim is not proper in this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).

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

Miessek · filed 2025-10-28(b)

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

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

Emrit v. United States Patent · filed 2025-10-29(b)

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

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

Frye v. United States · filed 2025-10-30(b)

For venue to be proper in the District of Columbia, all defendants must reside here, a substantial part of the events or omissions must have occurred here, or there must be no other proper district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Finally, venue would be proper in the District of Columbia if it did not lie anywhere else. But here, there is a proper venue: the District of South Carolina. All the significant events occurred there.

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.

Qingbo · filed 2025-11-04(b)

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

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

Gordon · filed 2025-10-23(b)(1),(2)

It is plain from the facts set forth in the Complaint that venue is not proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

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

MOORE · filed 2025-10-28(b)

None of the Defendants identified in the complaint are residents of this Commonwealth, nor do Emrit’s allegations suggest that any part of the events or omissions giving rise to his putative claims occurred here.

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

Friedeberg · filed 2025-11-10(b)

Thus, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and not this court, is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2). Accordingly, this court is not a proper venue for this action and the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut is the only proper venue for this action.

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

Greene · filed 2025-11-17(b)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may be brought in: (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction. 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.

Kline · filed 2025-11-18(b)

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

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

Anderson · filed 2025-11-18(b)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in this district1 or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claim arose in this district, venue is not proper in this Court under § 1391(b).

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

Hunt · filed 2025-11-19(b)

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

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

Michael Angelo Burnett, et al. v. Washington · filed 2025-11-20(b)

The complaint is transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan because venue is not proper in this district. ... Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located,” or “(2) a 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.”

Section 1391(b) permits a civil rights action in a district tied to a defendant’s residence or a substantial part of the alleged events, with a fallback when no other district qualifies.

Taylor v. State of California · filed 2025-12-02(b)

A civil rights action may be brought 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 (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Here, as discussed above, plaintiff has not identified a proper defendant, and all of the incidents alleged by plaintiff took place in California. Therefore, plaintiff’s requests for change of venue are denied.

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

Morse · filed 2025-12-03(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).

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

Adams · filed 2025-12-03(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because Defendants are employed in Miami, and the alleged events occurred there, 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) provides no basis for venue in a district where no substantial part of the events occurred and no defendant is alleged to reside.

Cohn · filed 2025-12-09(b)

Thus, there is no apparent basis for venue 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.

Poulsen v. Poulsen · filed 2025-12-09(b)

As for venue, the District of Utah is proper because it is the only federal judicial district in which the defendant resides and where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the alleged claim occurred.

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

Kern v. Pelican Bay State Prison · filed 2025-12-11(b)

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

Section 1391(b) permits a civil action in a qualifying defendant's district or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, with a fallback when neither basis provides a district.

Kern · filed 2025-12-11(b)

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

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

SHAIKH · filed 2025-12-12(b)(1), (2)

Based on these allegations, 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 in a district where the defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Bishme Smith v. Smith · filed 2025-12-16(b)

Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff could not have brought this action in the Southern District of New York because venue would not be proper in the Southern District of New York.

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

Dillard · filed 2025-12-17(b)

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

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

Williams v. Equifax Information Services LLC · filed 2025-12-22(b)(1)-(2)

Thus, the Plaintiff has not alleged that venue is proper in this District under either § 1391(b)(1) or § 1391(b)(2); however, it appears that this case could have been filed in a different District.

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 fallback rule.

Robertson · filed 2025-12-23(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.

An entity defendant’s residence for venue purposes depends on personal jurisdiction, and venue may also lie where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Halloum · filed 2025-12-10(b)(1)–(2), (c)(2)

Accordingly, based on the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, venue is not proper in the District of Oregon because Defendant does not reside in this district and the events giving rise to this action took place outside this district.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and no relevant events occurred when the action could be brought in another district.

Sherman · filed 2025-12-18(b)

There is no set of facts regarding the events underlying this matter that Plaintiff could allege that would make the District of Kansas the proper venue for this matter.

Section 1391(b) places venue for a § 1983 claim where the events giving rise to the claim occurred or where the defendants reside.

Wilson · filed 2025-12-19(b)

The proper venue for a § 1983 claim is the place where the events giving rise to the claim occurred or the place where the defendants reside. See 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). It is unclear what events gave rise to this action, but three of the four defendants are officials in Broward County. The Southern District of Florida is the proper venue to sue those defendants.

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

Logan Jr. v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2026-01-08(b)

The general federal venue statute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all ... defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” ... Therefore, because this case is based on events that occurred in Los Angeles and the responding Defendants are also in this area, Plaintiff’s case should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Section 1391(b) permits dismissal without prejudice when the complaint lacks enough facts to determine whether the filing district is a proper venue.

Thompson · filed 2026-01-13(b)

Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as it is unclear whether this Court is the proper venue for this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Martin · filed 2026-01-14(b)

Here, the events underlying Martin’s claims occurred at the Upstate Correctional Facility in Malone, New York. See Docket Item 1 at 6; see also id. at 16-22 (describing events underlying the two claims). Malone, New York, is located in Franklin County, and thus within the geographical confines of the Northern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(a).2 Moreover, Martin does not allege that any defendant3 resides in this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).4 Thus, there is no apparent basis for venue in this District.

Section 1391(b) requires facts establishing that the chosen district is a proper venue, such as where defendants reside or where substantial claim-related events occurred.

Bacdayan · filed 2026-01-08(b)

To the extent that Re/Max’s ownership of his apartment is relevant to the RICO allegations, Plaintiff has yet to articulate any events giving rise to the action that occurred in the Eastern District of California. ... Both the lack of specificity and the failure to establish either personal jurisdiction or venue render the pleadings insufficient.

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

Daniels · filed 2026-01-15(b)

Given that DFS has been dismissed from the instant case pursuant to Eleventh Amendment immunity, this Court is not the proper venue.

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

GAGE · filed 2026-01-15(b)

Generally, venue is only appropriate in a judicial district in which either: (1) a defendant resides; or (2) “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... Additionally, the events giving rise to this action all occurred in New Jersey. (Id. ¶¶ 12–135.) Therefore, the Court finds venue is appropriate in New Jersey and Gage has failed to bear his burden to establish the need to transfer this action to another judicial district.

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

Zarrow · filed 2026-01-15(b)

Thus, this court is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1). ... Thus, the Unted States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is also a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Ernest Godfrey Logan, Jr. v. Albertson’s Store #4131 · filed 2026-01-15(b)

In this case, all defendants reside, and plaintiff’s claims arose, in Los Angeles County, which is in the Central 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 claims occurred.

MADAGONI · filed 2026-01-16(b)

Thus, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, not this court, is a proper venue for Plaintiff’s remaining civil claims, under Section 1391(b)(1). ... Thus, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey is a proper venue for Plaintiff’s remaining claims, under Section 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district when the defendants and events are elsewhere and no facts support personal jurisdiction there.

Lietzke · filed 2026-01-22(b)

No facts support a conclusion that venue in Idaho is appropriate for the same reasons that personal jurisdiction does not lie.

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

Reinke · filed 2026-01-26(b)

The Complaint lacks any basis upon which the Court could establish that it has personal jurisdiction over the named Defendants or could be considered a proper venue for this action.11 None of the Defendants reside in Alaska and none of the alleged events took place in Alaska.

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

Mencias · filed 2026-01-27(b)

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

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

Sambula · filed 2026-02-02(b)

Here, venue is not proper in the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiff seeks to challenge an arrest made in Bronx County and sues defendants located in New York County and Bronx County. See Compl. 2-5. Accordingly, this action “could have been brought” in the Southern District of New York, but was not properly brought here.

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

Angela Dawn Perez Dowling v. The People of the Court · filed 2026-01-16(b)(1)-(2)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that any defendant resides in the State of New York, or that the events giving rise to her claims occurred in this district, 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 or a substantial connection between the district and the events or property at issue.

Barth v. Mabry Carlton Ranch Inc. · filed 2026-01-18(b)(1)–(2)

Based on the complaint, it appears that most, if not all, of the defendants reside in Florida, see Compl. xiii–xvi, so venue under § 1391(b)(1) is improper. And Barth fails to allege that anything substantial happened in this District.

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

Bruce · filed 2026-01-26(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(2)

Venue in the Southern District of New York is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (2) because Defendants reside in this District within the meaning of id. § 1391(c)(2), Plaintiff resides in this district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred here.

Section 1391 generally ties venue to where the defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Reynolds · filed 2026-02-02

As explained in the Report, this is not the proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Defendants are not citizens of South Carolina, nor did the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occur in this state. Id. at 2. ... This is not the proper venue for Plaintiff’s case.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) requires a substantial part of the events, omissions, or property at issue to be in the district for venue to be proper there under that provision.

Provino · filed 2026-02-03(e)(1)(B)

Because Plaintiff does not allege that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to her claims occurred in this district, or that a substantial part of the property that is the subject of this action is located in this district, venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(e)(1)(B).

Section 1391 permits venue based on a defendant’s residence, a substantial part of the events or property at issue, or, when neither provides a district, personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Alexander · filed 2026-02-04(b)

Venue of civil actions is governed by the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Alexander does not identify where the events giving rise to his claim occurred. He makes no assertion about any location, and he does not allege any actions which occurred within Oregon.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events occurred; when neither connection exists, venue may be improper.

Askins · filed 2026-02-05(b)

Therefore, no defendant resides in the District of Kansas, none of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of Kansas, and the events underlying the claims occurred within the Western District of Missouri.

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper where the remaining defendants reside elsewhere, the relevant events occurred elsewhere, and no other basis for venue exists.

KEMP · filed 2026-02-09(b)

After dismissing Defendants Sales, Andrews, Kemp, and Oliver, venue is no longer be proper in this district: Plaintiff’s claims involve events occurring in Telfair County in the Southern District of Georgia, each of the remaining individuals named as Defendants appear to reside there, and the Court cannot discern any other basis for venue in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Brown · filed 2026-02-17(b)

It is unclear why Brown’s consent would be required to transfer the case to this court given that this court is the proper venue for the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Based on that same statute, the facts that the defendants reside and participated in the relevant events within the Northern District of Indiana are the precise reason why venue is proper here.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where the defendants do not all reside in the forum state, no substantial part of the claim arose, and another district is available.

Lynn · filed 2026-02-25(b)(1)-(3)

Seeing as though the Defendants are not all residents of Texas, the Court finds that venue is improper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). ... Therefore, the Court finds that venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). ... Therefore, the Court finds that venue in this District is also improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3).

Section 1391(b)(1) and (2) requires a plaintiff to establish a basis for venue, such as defendant residence or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim in the district.

Krasnici v. Ag · filed 2026-02-19(b)(1), (2)

The district court dismissed Krasnici’s action for improper venue because Krasnici failed to establish that any of the defendants reside in the Northern District of California or that a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claims occurred there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2) (describing where a civil action may be brought). Krasnici’s brief on appeal does not demonstrate how the district court erred in its determination.

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.

Noha v. Ronald Reagan-Washington National Airport · filed 2026-03-10(b)(1)–(2)

Accordingly, venue is not established under § 1391(b)(1), because the defendants do not all reside in the same state. However, venue is established in Virginia under § 1391(b)(2), because all of the events giving rise to Noha’s claims occurred in Virginia, largely at Reagan National, and thereafter, at Arlington County Detention Center.

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

Watson · filed 2026-03-11(b)(1)-(2)

As relevant here, venue is proper in either “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located” or “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2). ... Applying these provisions here, the Court concludes that venue is almost certainly improper in this District and that transfer to the District of Connecticut is warranted. That is because Diamond Tucker’s claims have no connection to New York whatsoever; instead, they relate to property in Connecticut and appear to arise under Connecticut law.

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

Sylvas · filed 2026-03-16(b)

Sylvas has presented no basis for this matter to proceed in the Eastern District of Louisiana rather than the Western District of Louisiana. The events complained about took place at RBDC where Sylvas is currently housed in Lake Providence, Louisiana, which is located in East Carroll Parish.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not make a district a proper venue merely because examination and expert evidence may be developed there; the events in that district must give rise to the claims.

McKee · filed 2026-03-16(b)(2)

None of the defendants reside in the Middle District of Louisiana,23 see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), and the only “events” plaintiff points to as occurring in the Middle District of Louisiana are “the critical examination and the creation of essential expert evidence,”24 see § 1391(b)(2). Importantly, it does not appear that these are the events “giving rise to his claims.”

Section 1391 permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred and treats a corporate defendant as residing where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

WALKER · filed 2026-03-16(b), (c)

Because venue is proper in all three district courts under Section 1391, the Court will apply the balancing test under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to determine whether the case should proceed in the Western District of Pennsylvania or is properly transferred to Texas or Louisiana.

Section 1391(b) does not permit venue in a district where no defendant resides and no events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred, when another proper forum exists.

Emrit v. Cherniavska · filed 2026-03-05(b)

Moreover, it is clear from a review of the complaint that venue does not lie in this judicia district. See 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). None of the Defendants identified in the complaint are residents of this Commonwealth, nor do Plaintiff's allegations suggest that any part of the events or omissions giving rise to his putative claims occurred here.

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.

Noha v. Washington Dulles International Airport · filed 2026-03-10(b)(1)–(2)

Accordingly, venue is not established under § 1391(b)(1), because the defendants do not all reside in the same state. However, venue is established in Virginia under § 1391(b)(2), because all of the events giving rise to Noha’s claims occurred in Dulles, Virginia.

Section 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2) support venue in a district where the defendant resides and the services giving rise to the dispute were rendered.

Aerotek, LLC v. Hydrafab Northwest · filed 2026-03-17(b)(1), (b)(2)

Further, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and 1391(b)(2), as Defendant resides within this district and this case concerns a contractual dispute arising from staffing services that were rendered within 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.

Downling · filed 2026-03-17(b)(1), (b)(2)

Because the federal district court for that judicial district is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(1) and (2), in the interest of justice, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Section 1391(b) makes the Southern District of Illinois the proper venue for civil rights claims arising from events at Lawrence Correctional Center.

Ballance · filed 2026-03-18(b)

As for the claims alleged at Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”), 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) guides the proper venue for federal civil rights actions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... Thus, Plaintiff should file a separate pleading regarding events at Lawrence in the Southern District of Illinois.

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

Herrera · filed 2026-03-18(b)

Because the defendant in this action is located in Florida and the events giving rise to Herrera’s claim occurred in Florida, venue does not exist in the District of Massachusetts.

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

Bordages · filed 2026-03-23(b)

None of these situations apply here. Each Defendant is in Texas, not Tennessee. And the criminal charges at issue occurred in Texas, not Tennessee.

Section 1391(b) permits a civil lawsuit in a district where the defendant resides or where the claim arose.

Curry · filed 2026-04-14(b)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil lawsuit may brought in a judicial district in which the defendant resides, or in a judicial district in which the claim arose. ... As a result, plaintiff's complaint was not properly filed with this Court.

Section 1391(b) provides separate bases for venue based on defendant residence and where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Turbovets Incorporated v. Patriot Claims LLC · filed 2026-04-21(b)

Both bases are sufficient to render a venue proper under Section 1391(b).

Section 1391(b) makes venue improper in a district where no defendant resides and no substantial part of the alleged events occurred when the action could be brought elsewhere.

Haley Jr. v. Monroe County · filed 2026-05-01(b)

Furthermore, even if Plaintiff had established subject matter jurisdiction, venue is improper in this District. ... Here, all of the parties are located in New York, and all of the alleged actions and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims also occurred there. As pleaded, this action bears no connection to the District of Columbia.

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 when the action could be brought in another district.

Coulter · filed 2026-05-19(b)

Given that all Defendants reside in Oklahoma and that the events underlying Ms. Coulter’s claims took place in Oklahoma, it is clear that venue in this court is improper for this case.

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

Jones · filed 2026-06-03(b)

Jones has presented no basis for this matter to proceed in the Eastern District of Louisiana rather than the Western District of Louisiana. The events complained about took place at Iberia Parish Jail where Jones is currently housed, which is located in New Iberia, Louisiana, within Iberia Parish. ... The named defendants are all located in Iberia Parish. ... The interests of justice and fairness to the parties dictate that venue is appropriate in the Western District of Louisiana.

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.

Johnson v. Department of Corrections & Public Safety · filed 2026-06-03(b)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In the instant case, the defendants are 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) requires a basis for venue tied to a defendant’s residence, a substantial part of the events, or, when no other district is available, personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

Emrit · filed 2026-06-23(b)

But he has not alleged that the Northern District of Oklahoma is where any defendant resides, where any of the events occurred, or where any of the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction.

Section 1391(b) permits venue in the district where the complained-of acts occurred.

Davis v. USP Victorville Unit Officers (2B) on 12/13/2019 · filed 2021-09-09(b)

Thus, the acts complained of occurred in San Bernardino County, which lies within the venue of the Eastern Division of the Central District of California, and it appears that Defendants reside in that district. Venue, therefore, properly lies in that district and not in this one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

Sands v. Contruction · filed 2021-12-31(b)(1), (b)(2)

Venue is proper in this Court as this suit has been brought in the district where Defendant resides, where a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the claims occurred, and where a substantial part of the Property that is the subject of the action is situated.

Section 1391(b) places venue for a challenge to a conviction in the district where the conviction occurred.

(HC)Inzunza v. Palleres · filed 2022-12-21(b)

In this case, the petitioner is challenging a conviction from Los Angeles 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) does not support venue based on the events giving rise to a claim or the property at issue when neither is located in the district.

Dewayne v. United States · filed 2023-03-23(b)

This Court is not the appropriate venue for the DeWayne’s lawsuit.2 As stated by another court in this district that dismissed one of DeWayne’s previous lawsuits involving the same mortgage, “venue is improper in this District, as none of the events giving rise to the claim occurred here, nor is the property at issue located in Washington, D.C.”

Section 1391(b) requires a civil action to be filed in a district with a qualifying connection to the defendant or the events giving rise to the claim.

(HC) Bailey v. CCWF Warden · filed 2023-11-13(b)

Petitioner is challenging a conviction from Los Angeles 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) places venue for a challenge to a conviction in the district where the conviction occurred.

(HC) Wells v. State of California · filed 2024-01-02(b)

In this case, the petitioner is challenging a conviction from Santa Clara County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

Langworthy v. Colfax County · filed 2025-02-10

Plaintiff has not shown that the District of New Mexico is the wrong venue, that this case might have been brought in the District of Wyoming, or that all parties in this case have consented to transfer to the District of Wyoming.

Section 1391(b) requires a civil action to be filed in a district connected to the defendants or the events giving rise to the claim.

(HC) Towner v. Silva · filed 2025-07-31(b)

Petitioner is challenging a conviction from Santa Cruz County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Section 1391(b) identifies the districts where a civil action may be brought, based on defendant residence, where substantial events occurred, or, if neither applies, personal jurisdiction.

Lee v. Boyd · filed 2025-08-27(b)

Transfer under § 1404(a) is inappropriate because Defendant has not consented to transfer and because Plaintiff has not identified any other venue in which this case could have been properly brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (allowing a civil action to 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,” “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” or “if there is no such district . . . , any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action”). The court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s motion to transfer.

Section 1391(b) places venue for a challenge to continued immigration detention in the district where the detention facility is located.

(HC) Nguyen v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility · filed 2025-09-16(b)

Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

Section 1391(b) places venue for a petition challenging detention in the district where the detention facility is located.

Nguyen v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility · filed 2025-09-16(b)

Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

Section 1391(f)’s venue restrictions apply to suits against international organizations, which share foreign governments’ immunity from suit.

Rodriguez v. Pan American Health Organization · filed 2020-04-03(f)

And as foreign sovereign immunity extends in its entirety to international organizations, see Jam, 139 S. Ct. at 769, international organization immunity must necessarily encompass Section 1391(f)’s venue restrictions.

Section 1391(b) governs venue for diversity actions brought in federal court, but venue for removed actions is governed by § 1441(a).

Replica Auto Body Panels and Auto Sales v. Intech Trailers · filed 2020-04-16(b)

Section 1391(b) governs venue for diversity actions that are brought in federal court.

Section 1391 does not determine the proper federal venue for a case removed from state court; the removal statute does.

CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. v. REPROGRAPHICS · filed 2020-08-04

Palomar argues that under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the Southern District of California is a proper venue, and the District of New Jersey is an improper venue. This argument fails, however, because Palomar removed this suit from New Jersey state court.

Section 1391(b) does not govern venue in an action removed from state court.

The Emmes Company, LLC v. SAP America, Inc. · filed 2020-12-30(b)

Section 1391(b) “has no application to this case because this is a removed action,” not an action originally “brought” in federal court.

Section 1391 does not govern venue in an action removed from state court.

PUTT v. TRIPADVISOR INC. · filed 2021-01-25

The Court disagrees. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) “expressly provides that the proper venue of a removed action is ‘the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending’” and 28 U.S.C. § 1391 “has no application to this case because this is a removed action.”

Section 1391 governs venue in cases originally filed in federal court and does not apply to removed cases.

Taylor v. E M C Property & Casualty Insurance Co · filed 2021-01-28

The general venue statute that applies to cases originally filed in federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, does not apply in removed cases.

Section 1391 does not govern venue in a removed action, so it cannot make venue improper in the district to which the action was removed.

Choi v. General Motors LLC · filed 2021-09-09

The more-fundamental problem with the venue aspect of GM’s motion, however, is that it removed this action to this Court. Venue, therefore, cannot be improper here.