28 U.S.C. § 1391

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

Zayo Group LLC v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company · filed 2021-11-23

As such, 28 U.S.C. §1391, which governs venue generally, does not apply here.

Section 1391(b) does not govern venue in a removed action; the removal statute determines the proper venue.

Wichert v. Ohio Security Insurance Company · filed 2021-12-03(b)

The Court finds that the parties’ arguments are misguided. Plaintiff did not file suit here and had no burden to plead a federal venue. The federal removal statutes determine the proper venue for a removed case, and Defendant as the removing party bore the burden to allege the statutes were satisfied. ... Because this action was removed from a state court within this judicial district, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

Section 1391(b) does not determine venue in a removed action; § 1441(a) does.

Russell v. Liberty Fruit Company, Inc. · filed 2022-03-29(b)

“[I]n removed actions like this ... one, § 1441(a), rather than § 1391(b), sets forth the proper venue for the filing of a petition for removal.”

Section 1391 does not govern venue in an action removed from state court; Section 1441(a) governs instead.

Gaudin v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2022-03-30

Gauldin counters that the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, does not apply to removed actions such as this one. ... Because the Court finds that § 1441(a) is indeed the governing provision, and that venue is proper here under that provision,’ this Ruling will focus solely on the arguments for and against transfer to the Eastern District under § 1404(a).

Section 1391(b)(2) does not determine venue for an action removed from state court.

Olmsted v. Foundation Partners Group, LLC · filed 2022-05-25(b)(2)

Second, the general federal venue statute does not apply because this matter was removed from state court.

Section 1391 does not govern venue in an action removed from state court; § 1441(a) does.

Neumann v. Red Rock 4-Wheelers, Inc. · filed 2022-08-15

Venue of a removed action like this one is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). See Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, Inc., 345 U.S. 663, 665–66 (1953) (holding § 1441(a) governs venue in removal actions, not the general venue statute 28 U.S.C. § 1391); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (removal jurisdiction) with 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (“Venue Generally”).

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

Eichler v. InBANK · filed 2022-08-26(b)

However, as Plaintiffs note, Section 1391 does not apply to removed actions.

Section 1391 governs venue for actions brought in federal district court, but does not apply to actions removed from state court.

SpeedFit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc. · filed 2022-11-22(a)(1)

Thus, under Polizzi, § 1391 does not apply here and the action was properly removed to the Southern District of New York pursuant to § 1441(a) because it was removed from a state court in the district.

Section 1391 does not govern venue for actions removed from state court.

McConnell & Malek Enterprises v. Proof Mark, Inc · filed 2023-05-25

Section 1391, however, does not apply to actions that have been removed from state court.

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

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. SITUS Trucking, LLC · filed 2023-07-20

Nonetheless, SITUS improperly removed this action to the District of Puerto Rico by incorrectly citing Section 1391, a general venue statute is inapplicable to this case because it is a removed action.

Section 1391 does not govern venue in actions removed from state court to federal court.

Wofford v. Valenti-Tellez · filed 2023-11-06

Both parties have overlooked the critical fact that the general venue statutes, including § 1391, do not apply to cases removed to federal court.

Section 1391(b) does not provide grounds to dismiss a case for improper venue after it has been properly removed to federal court.

Empirian Health, LLC v. Specialty RX, Inc. · filed 2023-11-14(b)

But the general venue statute does not apply to ... removed actions: “once a case is properly removed to ... federal court, a defendant cannot move to dismiss on ... § 1391 venue grounds.”

Section 1391(b)'s general venue rules do not apply to actions removed from state court; § 1441(a) governs venue in those actions.

Hurtt Fabricating Corporation v. RN'G Construction, Inc. · filed 2024-05-08(b)

However, although neither party discusses the issue, it is well established that the general venue provision in § 1391(b) does not apply to cases that were removed from state court; instead, venue in such cases is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

Section 1391 does not determine venue for an action removed from state court.

HALPERN v. CENTROID SYSTEMS, INC. · filed 2024-10-21

Centroid’s argument fails because § 1391 does “not determine the district court to which a civil action pending in a State court may be removed.”

Section 1391 does not govern venue in removed actions; Section 1441(a) does.

Taste of Perfection, LLC v. Walker · filed 2024-12-02

“[O]n the question of venue, § 1391 has no application to this case because this is a removed action.”

Section 1391 governs where an action may be brought, but venue for an action removed from state court is governed by Section 1441.

Fall v. Abdur-Rahim · filed 2024-12-19(a)

As noted above, Section 1391(a) limits the district in which an action may be ‘brought.’ ... Venue, therefore, is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

Section 1391 does not govern venue in a removed action; § 1441 governs instead.

BREWER v. DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC · filed 2025-05-27

Because this case was removed to federal court, the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, rather than the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, governs.

Section 1391 governs venue for actions brought in federal district court, but does not apply to actions removed from state court.

Crawford Heating and Cooling Co. v. Clean Air Engineering Maritime Inc · filed 2025-08-11(a)(1)

By its own terms, § 1391 governs the venue of “all civil actions brought in the district courts of the United States”. ... Therefore, in a removed action such as this one, § 1441(a) governs the proper venue.

Section 1391 generally governs venue, but the removal statute determines venue for an action removed from state court.

Brenner · filed 2026-01-08

Though venue is typically governed by the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, in removal actions, venue is proper in the district court embracing the state court in which the case was originally filed. ... While the Brenners do not raise the argument, the Court finds that venue is proper here because the removal statute, not the venue statute, controls.

Section 1391(e) does not cover federal judges sued in their official capacities because it applies only to the executive branch.

Lawyers United Inc. v. Roberts · filed 2020-06-29(e)

Even when assuming that Section 1391(e) is also a personal jurisdiction statute, it still does not cover federal judges in California or Florida, as the provision only applies to the executive branch.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a state statute was enacted when that enactment is a substantial part of the events giving rise to a facial constitutional challenge.

White Hat v. Landry · filed 2020-07-30(b)(2)

The passage of the La. R.S. 14:61 constitutes a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim that the Statute is unconstitutionally vague and viewpoint discriminatory.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits venue in an action against a federal defendant involving no real property when any one plaintiff in a multi-plaintiff action resides in the district.

Ray v. Cuccinelli · filed 2020-11-03(e)(1)(C)

The Court declines to depart with courts’ decades-long interpretation of the venue statute. The residence of 6 Plaintiffs in this District is, “standing alone, sufficient to establish that venue is proper[.]” Californians for Renewable Energy, 2018 WL 1586211, at *6. As such, Plaintiffs have met their burden to show that venue in this district is proper.

In an action against a federal defendant, § 1391(e)(1)(C) permits venue in a district where any plaintiff resides when the action is filed.

Ray v. Cuccinelli · filed 2020-12-15(e)(1)(C)

At the time Plaintiffs’ filed their complaint, 7 Plaintiffs resided in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C). “[V]enue is proper in a multi-plaintiff action if any plaintiff resides in the District.” ... As such, Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that venue in this district is proper.

Section 1391(e)(3) permits venue for all plaintiffs in a district where at least one plaintiff resides.

Kolluri v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service · filed 2021-01-17(e)(3)

Venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Under this section, “venue is proper as to all plaintiffs if suit is brought in a district where any one or more of the plaintiffs resides.” ... Here, USCIS has admitted that 7 plaintiffs reside within the Northern District of Texas. Thus, venue is proper.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits venue in a suit against federal officers with multiple plaintiffs when one plaintiff resides in the district at filing; that plaintiff’s later dismissal does not defeat venue.

Yarmohammadi v. Rubio · filed 2025-07-21(e)(1)(C)

“For purposes of § 1391(e)(1)(C), venue is proper in a multi-plaintiff case if any plaintiff resides in the district.” S.C. Coastal Conservation League v. Pruitt, No. 18-CV-330-DCN, 2018 WL 2184395, at *5 (D.S.C. May 11, 2018) (emphasis in original) (citing Exxon Corp. v. Fed. Trade Commission, 588 F.2d 895 (3rd Cir. 1978)); see also Sakthivel v. Cuccinelli, No. 3:18-CV- 03194-CMC, 2020 WL 1698019, at *4 (D.S.C. Apr. 7, 2020) (“Plaintiffs argue and the Government does not dispute that the majority interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C) allows venue in a multi-plaintiff case against the Government (where no real property is involved) to be founded on the residency of one plaintiff.”), aff'd sub nom. Sakthivel v. Jaddou, No. 21-1207, 2023 WL 2888565 (4th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023). Thus, venue was proper in this District when Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint, and dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3) or § 1406 is not warranted.

Section 1391(b) determines whether venue is proper based on the circumstances when the suit is filed.

DeWolff Boberg & Associates Inc v. Pethick · filed 2020-11-20(b)

The plain language of § 1391 indicates that a venue is deemed either proper or improper at the time of filing suit.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue where the plaintiff resides when the complaint is filed, and a later dismissal of that plaintiff does not undo proper venue.

N-N v. Mayorkas · filed 2021-05-18(e)(1)

Venue was proper at the time this case was filed because it was brought in the venue in which plaintiff N-N resided and venue is determined on the facts at the time a complaint is filed. ... Further, once venue is established, it is not affected by subsequent events. ... Accordingly, venue is proper in this District notwithstanding the dismissal of N-N.

Section 1391 permits venue in the district where a detained petitioner filed, despite a later transfer to another district.

Mansaray v. Mayorkas · filed 2021-06-07(b)(2), (e)(1)(B)

Accordingly, venue is proper in this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2), (e)(1)(B).

Parties may consent to venue in a district that Section 1391(b) does not otherwise authorize.

Store Master Funding IV LLC v. Chalak Peak Restaurants LLC · filed 2021-01-21(b)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff. Parties may consent to a venue that is not expressly authorized by statute.

A defendant’s binding admission that venue is proper under § 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2) supports denial of a motion to transfer venue.

Reliant Management Group, LLC v. Thomas J. Mabry and Associates, Inc. · filed 2022-07-11(b)(1), (b)(2)

Second, Mabry’s motion must be denied because it admits that venue is proper in the Middle District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2).

Section 1391 does not establish venue in a district merely because a defendant’s website is accessible there and uses cookies, without proof of other activity in the district.

Blockchange Ventures I GP, LLC v. Blockchange, Inc. · filed 2021-01-29

The fact that the Defendant maintains a website accessible in New York which uses cookies is insufficient to establish that a “substantial proportion of the events that caused the claims in this case” occurred in this district, without any proof of other activities in this district. ... Accordingly, I find that venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391(b)(1) can provide venue for a petition to confirm an arbitration award.

Wells Fargo Clearing Services LLC v. Taylor · filed 2021-02-01(b)(1)

After review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis on this point and finds that venue is appropriate in the District of South Carolina under the FAA’s special venue statute and the general venue statute, as well as under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(e) permits an ADEA claim against a federal official to be brought in the district where the plaintiff resides when no real property is involved.

Naveda v. Postmaster General · filed 2023-07-18(e)

Because Plaintiff resides in Queens County, venue of her ADEA claim against a federal official is proper in the Eastern District under Section 1391(e)(C).

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue for claims against a federal agency where a substantial part of the alleged events occurred or where the plaintiff resides.

Parra v. Social Security Administration Region 2 · filed 2025-06-09(e)(1)

As to Plaintiff’s claims under the APA, which include his claims of federal constitutional violations, the Court determined that, under the relevant venue provision for those claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), while there is a possibility that this court may be a proper venue for those claims, it is clear that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey is also a proper venue because Plaintiff alleges that a substantial part, if not, almost all of the alleged events had occurred within the District of New Jersey and because Plaintiff resides within that judicial district.

Section 1391(b) permits an action governed by federal law to be brought in a district where all defendants reside or where the claim arose.

Illinois v. City of Milwaukee · filed 1972-04-24(b)

The rule of decision being federal, the “action . . . may be brought only in the judicial district where all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose,” 28 U. S. C. §1391 (b), thereby giving flexibility to the choice of venue.

Section 1391 governs venue in FLSA actions.

Goldowsky v. Exeter Finance Corporation · filed 2021-02-23

Compliance with § 1391 is required for FLSA actions, a proposition Plaintiffs do not dispute.

Section 1391(b)(2) governs venue for FLSA claims and permits suit where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Lewis v. Affiliated Enterprise Solutions, LLC · filed 2024-04-17(b)(2)

FLSA claims are subject to the general venue provision.

Section 1391(b)(2) places venue for an FDCPA claim where the collection agency mails a collection notice or places a phone call.

Dixon v. Mazda Financial Services, Inc. · filed 2021-11-01(b)(2)

Under § 1391(b)(2), in actions brought under the FDCPA, the claim arises in the location where the collection agency mails a collection notice or places a phone call.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where USCIS processed the challenged petition.

Udoh v. Garland · filed 2021-11-15(e)(1)(B)

Therefore, because “a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to [Plaintiff’s] claim[s] occurred” in the Northern District of Texas, venue is proper in that district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if venue is also proper elsewhere.

Promier Products, Inc. v. Orion Capital, LLC · filed 2021-11-23(b)(2)

Although Orion’s representatives did not work out of Illinois, all of Promier’s employees performed their obligations under the contract in Illinois. The parties’ dispute arises out of this contractual arrangement. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), if not, (b)(3).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if other events occurred elsewhere.

American Medical Facilities Management, LLC v. Vetcomm, LLC · filed 2022-01-24(b)(2)

These connections to West Virginia are “substantial” under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and venue is proper in this court.

Section 1391(b) does not provide venue in the Southern District of New York for claims arising in Queens when no other venue basis is shown.

S-King v. New York County/City · filed 2022-02-22(b)

Venue for Plaintiff’s claims that occurred in Queens, New York, is not appropriate in this Court.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where damage to insured property in the district is a substantial part of the events giving rise to an insurance claim over the amount of damage.

S L C Hospitality L L C v. Palomar Specialty Insurance Co · filed 2022-03-08(b)(2)

Plaintiffs’ allegations show that the hurricane damage is a “substantial part” of the facts giving rise to their claims.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not permit venue in a district when all events giving rise to the claims occurred outside it.

Wan v. DeJoy · filed 2022-03-16(b)(2)

Venue for Plaintiff’s claims under the FMLA and section 1981 is therefore not proper in this district under § 1391(b)(2) because all of his claims arose outside this district.

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

Chapa v. American Airlines Group, Inc. · filed 2022-03-21(b)(2)

The only question for the Court is whether Plaintiff properly laid venue in this Court because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division.49 ... Under the standard of review favoring Plaintiff,52 the Court holds that Plaintiff properly laid venue in this Court.

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

Rioux v. United States of America · filed 2022-03-22(b)(2)

It is also clear that because all the alleged events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in New Hampshire, the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire is a proper venue for all of Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1391(b)(2) does not permit venue in a district where no substantial events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Flores v. Lubbock County Jail · filed 2022-03-24(b)(2)

Accepting the allegations as true, the claims here bear no relation to New Mexico. ... Venue is therefore not appropriate under subsection (2).

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

Kesters Merchandising Display International, Inc. v. SurfaceQuest, Inc. · filed 2022-05-11(b)(2)

Because a substantial part of the events giving rise to KMDI’s claims occurred in Kansas, venue is proper here.

Section 1391 permits venue in a district where the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Harrington v. Busby · filed 2022-05-12(b)(2)

Thus, they merely argue that venue is proper in the Northern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. ... Venue, however, is also proper here. See id. ... And though the events that gave rise to Harrington’s burglary charge may have occurred in the Northern District, the events that give rise to the present matter, as Harrington alleges, occurred in the Southern District.

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

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Yap · filed 2022-05-16(b)(2)

The claims involved in this action do not arise out of the alleged canoeing accident; rather, the claims arise out of the terms of the Adventure Sports Contracts. Accordingly, “a substantial part of the events ... giving rise to the claim[s]” took place in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which is also the only proper federal venue for this case.

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

Wilson-Millan v. US Bureau of Prisons · filed 2022-05-18(b)

That said, the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim -- and those underlying his pending motion for emergency relief -- are not connected to the District of Columbia, nor are the responsible individuals located here. Therefore, the Court agrees that this venue is improper. See Defs.’ Mem. at 21-24; 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (designating the proper venue as a judicial district in the State where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”).

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

Jenkins, Jr v. O'Niel · filed 2022-05-31(b)(2)

Accepting the allegations as true, the claims here bear no relation to New Mexico. They arise from events that took place in the Colorado Jail. Subsection (2) therefore does not establish venue is proper.

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

Booker v. Flint · filed 2022-05-31(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that Defendants reside in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at WCF, venue would also be proper in the Northern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Xu v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development · filed 2022-06-09(b)(2)

Even if the Court assumes that Defendants reside in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Queens County, venue would also be proper in Eastern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Ditto v. Peterson Properties · filed 2022-06-10(b)(2)

Even if the Court assumes that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Oakland, California, venue would also be proper in the Northern District of California under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Booker v. John Doe 8-4 Shift Correctional Officer · filed 2022-06-13(b)(2)

Venue therefore is proper in the Northern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Cortez v. Barton · filed 2022-08-16(b)(2)

Under Section 1391(b)(2), venue is also proper in the district where the claims arose.

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

Gaddis v. Moseley · filed 2022-08-25(b)

Venue is proper because certain events giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred while plaintiff was being transported either to or from SVSP, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

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

PRICE v. KICK · filed 2022-08-26(b)(2)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; similar alleged conduct at another location does not alone establish venue there.

(PC) Hammler v. Pharmacev · filed 2022-08-30(b)(2)

However, there is no indication that “a substantial part” of the events giving rise to this suit have taken place within the boundaries of the Sacramento Division. The fact that Plaintiff wishes to bring claims against defendants at a different institution due to alleged “ongoing” violations of a similar nature, does not mean that “a substantial part” of the events giving rise to the suit occurred at the new institution.

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

Jackowski v. Sellars · filed 2022-09-13(b)(2)

Even if the Court assumes that Gross resides in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Onondaga County, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Northern District of New York.

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

Lemus-Morales v. United States of America · filed 2022-09-19(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue lies in the District of Colorado for Plaintiff’s FTCA claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b), and for his Bivens claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

SMEC America Corp v. Aggressive Hydraulics Leasing Company, Inc · filed 2022-10-04(b)(2)

Consequently, venue is also proper in the District of Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, even if no defendant resides there.

Perrong v. Timeshare Help Source, LLC · filed 2022-10-05(b)(2)

Though none of the defendants are residents in this District, the Court agrees that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because a substantial part of the alleged events, i.e., conducting business via telephone calls and luncheons, occurred here.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, even when another district is also a proper venue.

MISSONG MANAGEMENT, LLC v. CARMEL OF JESUS, MARY AND JOSEPH IN ELYSBURG, PA, INC. · filed 2022-10-31(b)(2)

However, the Court must take the assertions in the Complaint as true and the Complaint alleges sufficient facts to show venue is proper in this District. To name just a few, Defendant consented to use a Settlement Agent in the Eastern District to complete the transaction at its location in this District. Defendant also mailed its closing documents to the Eastern District in advance of closing. Defendant also hired and used for this transaction a real estate agent conducting business in the Eastern District.

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

Turentine v. FC Lebanon II, LLC · filed 2022-11-15(b)(2)

As set forth above, venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because all or substantially all of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred there.

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

Atlas Apartments Acquisitions, LLC v. Stifel Nicolaus & Company Inc. · filed 2022-11-18(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue is proper in the Northern District of [linois because the post-collection proceedings giving rise to the claims took place in Illinois and the Defendants are amenable to personal jurisdiction in Ilinois.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a defendant published statements about a district resident’s conduct in that district.

Reo v. Lindstedt · filed 2022-12-20(b)(2)

The Court finds that venue is proper under § 1391(b)(2). Plaintiff’s claims concern Defendant’s conscious decision to publish statements about a Northern District of Ohio resident’s actions in the Northern District of Ohio.

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

Chavez v. American Express · filed 2023-01-05(b)(2)

Because the alleged events occurred in Los Angeles, California, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Keita v. State Farm Insurance · filed 2023-01-27(b)(2)

Thus, under Section 1391(b)(2), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is the proper venue for this action.

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

Perez v. Bombard · filed 2023-02-01(b)(2)

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

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

MORRELL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2023-02-16(b)(2)

No portion of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this judicial district. The proper venue for this petition is in the Northern District of Georgia.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including relevant injuries and treatment.

Mack v. CooperSurgical, Inc. · filed 2023-03-27(b)(2)

Therefore, the Macks have made a sufficient showing that venue is proper in the Middle District of Alabama under § 1391(b)(2), and Femcare has failed to carry its heavy burden of showing that venue is improper, see Wilson, 590 F.3d at 1269.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; peripheral events do not establish venue.

Deutsch v. Anna Deutsch Trust dated September 3, 1991 · filed 2023-03-29(b)(2)

Because this is a diversity case wherein the defendants reside in different states, venue is proper in 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)(2). ... Peripheral events with only an attenuated connection to the claims are irrelevant to the inquiry. ... Plaintiff has not carried his burden of demonstrating that venue is proper.

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

Gu v. John Doe (Neal) · filed 2023-04-13(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claims arose in Brooklyn, within Kings County, in the Eastern District of New York, see § 112(c), venue lies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, see § 1391(b)(2).

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

Vaughn v. Yakubov · filed 2023-04-21(b)(2)

Accordingly, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

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 claims occurred when another district qualifies.

Chandler v. Spitzer · filed 2023-05-10(b)

Therefore, the Court finds venue is proper in the Central District of California, Southern Division, 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(3), or the Eastern District of California, 28 U.S.C.§ 84(b), but not in the Southern District of California.

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

Agracel Inc v. STS Group North America Inc · filed 2023-05-18(b)(2)

As set forth above, substantial events giving rise to the claims in this case occurred in South Carolina, thereby rendering venue in this district proper.

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

Sumpter v. Fishkill Correctional Facility · filed 2023-05-24(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff alleges that the incident occurred in Jefferson County, outside this district, venue does not lie in this district under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Moodie v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York · filed 2023-06-15(b)(2)

because the alleged events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, venue is also proper in the Eastern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Joseph v. Savian Pizza Corp. · filed 2023-06-16(b)(1)-(2)

Venue does not properly lie in this District. It does not appear that any of the defendants reside in the Southern District of New York and Plaintiff does not allege that any events or omissions occurred in the Southern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial portion of the events giving rise to a claim occurred; ancillary events do not suffice.

Lynch v. Bailey-Roka · filed 2023-06-22(b)(2)

The Southern District of Florida is an improper venue for this case because substantial events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims took place outside this District. As explained in the Report, even though certain facts in this case occurred in Florida, those facts are “ancillary and not ‘substantial’ as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)” [ECF No. 67 p. 13].

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

(PS) White v. City and County of West Sacramento · filed 2023-07-17(b)

In this case, the defendants are in the Eastern District of California and all the facts giving rise to this case took place in the Eastern District of California. The undersigned has reviewed the docket and found nothing to indicate that plaintiff’s case has not or cannot be fairly heard in this district. The motion to change venue is DENIED because venue is proper in the Eastern District of California.

For a declaratory contract claim, the substantial events under § 1391(b)(2) occurred where the parties’ business relationship and performance began.

Rodgers v. Color Street LLC · filed 2023-07-19(b)(2)

Since the relationship between the parties began simultaneously in Washington and New Jersey, a substantial part of the events did not occur in Idaho with respect to Plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment claim.

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

Joseph v. NYPD · filed 2023-07-31(b)(2)

Queens County is in the Eastern District of New York, 28 U.S.C. § 112(c), and venue of this action therefore is proper in that district under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Carzoglio v. Annucci · filed 2023-08-28(b)(2)

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

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

Ryland v. Director of Federal Bureau of Prison(s) · filed 2023-09-07(b)

In this case, none of the defendants named in the Complaint reside in this district. The claims arose at USP Lee in Pennington Gap, Virginia, located in Lee County, which is in the Western District of Virginia. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims are properly brought in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

Section 1391(b) does not provide venue in this district for claims based on conduct in the Eastern District of New York or the District of New Jersey.

Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Baker Botts L.L.P. · filed 2023-09-07(b)

Moreover, this court lacks venue over conduct in the Eastern District of New York or the District of New Jersey. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

A conclusory assertion that substantial acts occurred in a district does not establish venue under § 1391(b)(2) without supporting factual allegations.

Henco Energy-Rick Hendrix Energy, LLC v. Power Rental Solutions, LLC · filed 2023-09-08(b)(2)

Formulaic recitations of the statute without supporting factual allegations are insufficient to show that venue is proper here.

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

Green v. Smith · filed 2023-09-13(b)(2)

Initially, the Court concludes that the Orangeburg Division is a division where this case might have been brought given that no Defendants reside in South Carolina and that the accident at issue occurred in Orangeburg County.

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

DIEBLER v. SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL, LLC · filed 2023-09-18(b)(2)

Further, venue is generally appropriate in “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)(2). Plaintiffs’ allegations center on a purported scheme based in Utah.

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

Brown v. Nunez · filed 2023-09-18(b)

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to Brown’s claims in his complaint are alleged to have occurred at SVSP, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if other relevant events occurred elsewhere.

H C & D L L C v. Cashman Equipment Corp · filed 2023-09-29(b)(2)

While other relevant events might have occurred elsewhere, I accord significant weight to the Gauging Report and find that it was a substantial part of the series of events giving rise to HC&D’s claim.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; sales in a district alone did not establish venue for this patent noninfringement action.

Shenzhen City Sanhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Albanese · filed 2023-10-31(b)(2)

In this case, since no substantial part of the events alleged in plaintiff’s complaint occurred anywhere except California, venue is improper in the Eastern District of New York.

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

(PS) Gigena v. Rye · filed 2023-11-01(b)

Lyon County, Nevada lies within the District of Nevada, not the Eastern District of California. Therefore, venue is improper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a defamation plaintiff suffered the alleged injury when that injury is a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.

Scofield v. Guillard · filed 2023-11-13(b)(2)

Because there is no basis to conclude that the alleged defamation was felt anywhere other than in Idaho, venue is likewise proper in Idaho and in this district.

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

(PC) Gaines v. Zhov · filed 2023-12-18(b)(2)

In this case, the claim arose in Alameda 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)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Pierson v. Enerco Group Inc · filed 2023-12-28(b)(2)

Here, venue is proper in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The entire Incident that gives rise to Plaintiffs’ Complaint occurred in Snelling, California, located in Merced County, in the Eastern District of California.

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

Pierson v. M.B. Sturgis, Inc. · filed 2023-12-28(b)(2)

Here, venue is proper in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires facts showing that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district; unsupported allegations do not establish venue.

Cunningham v. Headstart Warranty Group, LLC · filed 2024-03-06(b)(2)

Plaintiff fails to meet his burden of alleging a sufficient factual basis to support his contention that venue in this district is proper under § 1391.

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

Miller v. Chevron USA, Inc. · filed 2024-03-06(b)(2)

Because no events listed in the Complaint are located within the Middle District, Plaintiff cannot establish venue here under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

(PC) Moore v. Espinoza · filed 2024-03-08(b)(2)

In this case, 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 judicial district where the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Lewis v. French · filed 2024-03-19(b)

Venue is proper in this judicial district because the events giving rise to Lewis’s claims in his amended complaint are alleged to have occurred at SVSP, which is located in this district.

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

SYSTEM ONE HOLDINGS, LLC v. ACARA SOLUTIONS, INC · filed 2024-03-22(b)(2)

The Complaint sufficiently avers that the events and injuries giving rise to System One’s causes of actions were directed to its principal place of business in the Western District of Pennsylvania. ... Therefore, the Court concludes that, for purposes of determining venue and after accepting System One’s allegations as true, venue is not improper.

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

Stevens v. USA Today Sports Media Group, LLC · filed 2024-03-26(b)(2)

The law provides that federal civil actions may be brought in a judicial district “in which a substantial part of the events or admissions giving rise to the | claim occurred” or in a district “in which any defendant is subject to the court’s | personal jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)-(3). ... Accordingly, plaintiff could have brought suit there, and the | case can potentially be transferred there if the balance of private and public interests weighs in favor of such transfer.

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

Greene v. U.S District Court-Northern District of California · filed 2024-03-27(b)(2)

Because the alleged events occurred in the Northern District of California, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b) (2).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to a claim to occur in the district where the suit is filed.

Palmore v. Napoli Shkolnik PLLC · filed 2024-03-28(b)(2)

But Palmore does not allege that specific actions or omissions that gave rise to her claims occurred while she was working in this District, as required for venue to be proper.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, considering the entire sequence of events underlying the claim.

Smith v. Aphex BioCleanse Systems, Inc. · filed 2024-04-10(b)(2)

Venue is proper in a judicial district where a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ... This sequence of events compels the conclusion that venue is proper in Massachusetts.

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

Greene v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California · filed 2024-04-18(b)(2)

Because the alleged events occurred in the Eastern District of California, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Chavez v. American Express · filed 2024-05-22(b)(2)

Because the alleged events occurred in Los Angeles, California, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

NVME Group, Inc. v. Halverson · filed 2024-05-28(b)(2)

The Court concludes that venue is proper because, as already discussed at length in the context of personal jurisdiction, a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including alleged sales and shipments of infringing products to consumers there.

Westlake Corporation v. ChemCorp 1 LLC · filed 2024-06-17(b)(2)

Specifically, Westlake alleges that the defendants sold their infringing products through Amazon.com, that consumers in the Southern District purchased them, and that the defendants shipped the products to consumers in the Southern District. (Id. at 19). These allegations are sufficient to make venue proper in the Southern District.

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

Barton v. Zhang · filed 2024-06-27(b)(2)

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim” occurred in this District.

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

Latimore v. Lakeview Shock Correctional Facility · filed 2024-07-02(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claims arose in Chautauqua County, venue of this action does lie in the Western District of New York under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Min v. McGibbon · filed 2024-07-11(b)(2)

Plaintiff also alleges that events giving rise to her claims took place in Kings County, outside this district. It therefore appears from the face of the complaint that venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue for claims arising from online activity in a district where the plaintiff was located during relevant events.

Eaves v. Belfair Interactive US LLC · filed 2024-08-06(b)(2)

Venue of at least some claims is thus proper, under Section 1391(b)(2), in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

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

ConsumerDirect, Inc. v. Pentius, LLC · filed 2024-08-09(b)(2)

Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and (3) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District where ConsumerDirect maintains its principal place of business.

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

Elmore v. Burger King Company LLC · filed 2024-08-13(b)(2)

Accordingly, under Section 1391(b)(2), the United States District Court for the Central District of California is a proper venue for this action. As Plaintiff asserts nothing to suggest that any of the alleged events occurred within this judicial district, this court is not a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Ransom v. Mayorkas · filed 2024-08-23(b)(2)

As noted, FEMA’s headquarters are in Washington, D.C., and all events described in the Complaint appear to have occurred in Washington, D.C., where Ransom was previously employed. ... This case, which relies largely on the same facts on those other two cases, is no exception.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including where the medical care underlying a payment claim was provided.

Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center, LLC v. Blue Shield of California, Inc. · filed 2024-08-23(b)(2)

A substantial part of the events giving rise to the Hospitals’ claims took place in Nevada because the Hospitals are located in Nevada and all of the patients received their medical care in Nevada, so venue can be established through the general federal venue statute.

Section 1391(b) permits venue where defendants reside or where the events giving rise to the claim took place; a plaintiff’s later move does not change that analysis.

Spencer, Heru v. The Church of Prismatic Light · filed 2024-09-04(b)

In federal court, venue is proper where the defendants to a lawsuit reside or where the events giving rise to the claim took place. ... That he now resides in Montana is of no moment under § 1391.

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

Alford v. Dexeus · filed 2024-09-10(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claims arose in Queens County, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Alford v. Wray · filed 2024-09-10(b)(2)

The events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims all occurred in Queens County, and therefore venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(2) based on the location where the claims arose.

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

Johnson-El v. Olivia · filed 2024-09-16(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; for fraud claims, the statements must have been issued in or directed into the district.

Horowitz v. Emerald Nutraceuticals, LLC. · filed 2024-09-24(b)(2)

For venue to lie in this District, the fraudulent statements must have been issued in or otherwise directed into this District.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where material events in the district have a close connection to the claims, even when the allegedly defamatory statements were made elsewhere.

Matchroom Boxing Limited v. Paul · filed 2024-09-30(b)(2)

Given these circumstances, this Court concludes that “material acts” took place within this District that bear a “close nexus” to Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor-Plaintiff's defamation claims, such that venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2).

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

Garrison v. Bank of Missouri · filed 2024-10-22(b)(2)

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

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue where a qualitatively substantial event directly giving rise to a claim occurred, even if other relevant events occurred elsewhere.

Russo v. Raimondo · filed 2024-10-24(e)(1)(B)

The Council’s vote in Mobile was an event that directly gave rise to the plaintiff’s claims, and that vote constitutes a qualitatively substantial part of the events directly giving rise to those claims. Venue is thus proper in the Southern District of Alabama under Section 1391(e)(1)(B).

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

Elmore v. Starbucks Coffee Company · filed 2024-11-14(b)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claims arose in California, outside this district, venue is not proper in this district under Section 1391(b)(2) based on where the events occurred.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where contract negotiations and performance constitute a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim, even if related events occurred elsewhere.

GEIS REALTY GROUP, INC. v. AMPC REAL ESTATE LLC · filed 2024-12-02(b)(2)

Geis performed its obligations under, and negotiated, the commission agreement in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This is sufficient to find that substantial events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, including contract negotiations and execution or an alleged tort injury.

Henry v. Sax · filed 2024-12-19(b)(2)

As the district in which Plaintiffs negotiated and executed the agreements that form the basis for their contract claims and the district in which Plaintiffs’ alleged tort injury occurred, the District of Alaska has a substantial connection to those claims.

Section 1391(a)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, even if substantial events also occurred elsewhere.

Weiser Law Firm P.C. v. Hartleib · filed 2024-12-26(a)(2)

Taken collectively, Hartleib’s threats and attempts to initiate legal processes in Pennsylvania constitute a “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim” of abuse of process.

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

John v. 83rd Precinct · filed 2025-01-10(b)(2)

Venue of Plaintiff’s claims thus is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Mascioli v. Chevron U.S.A Inc. · filed 2025-01-13(b)(2)

Even if the Court did assume that Defendants reside in this District and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Nassau County, venue would also be proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Getty v. National Oil Corporation Libya · filed 2025-01-13(b)(2)

Venue under Section 1391(b)(2), based on where events giving rise to the claims took place, therefore is not proper in this district, but may be proper in Texas.

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

Williams v. B.R.C. of New York · filed 2025-01-22(b)(2)

Venue of Plaintiff’s claims thus is proper, under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York, where the events giving rise to the claims took place.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, even if venue is also proper elsewhere.

Cartiga, LLC v. Aquino · filed 2025-02-04(b)(2)

And here, the AC alleges that “a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim” occurred in New York County, making venue proper here. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Hanselman v. Illinois Department of Corrections · filed 2025-05-22(b)(2)

Here, the only remaining Defendant in this case is the Illinois Department of Corrections, and all the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred at Graham in Montgomery County, Illinois, which is in the Central District of Illinois. See 28 U.S.C. § 93. Thus, the Court finds that the Central District of Illinois is the appropriate forum for hearing and adjudicating this action and that it is in the interest of justice to transfer this case to that district. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1406(a), IT IS ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois for such further proceedings as that Court may deem appropriate.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred, including service of a civil investigative demand and resulting harm.

Media Matters for America v. Warren Paxton, Jr. · filed 2025-05-30(b)(2)

Under the current venue statute, civil actions may be brought in “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)(2). Here, a substantial part of the events giving rise to Appellees’ First Amendment retaliation claim occurred in the District.

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

Kenyatta Jr. v. Lakeview Correctional Facility · filed 2025-06-16(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Chautauqua County, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Western District of New York.

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

Davis v. Combs · filed 2025-06-16(b)(2)

Venue of this action is proper, under Section 1391(b)(2), in the Southern District of Texas because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Harris County, Texas.

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

Islam v. Sammey · filed 2025-07-01(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Queens County, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

Section 1391(b)(2) permits venue where substantial events underlying the claim occurred, considering the acts underlying the claim as a whole.

Aquidneck Trucking, LLC v. Lightspeed Trucking, LLC · filed 2025-07-31(b)(2)

It is undisputed that “Plaintiffs allege that substantial events occurred in Massachusetts.” Memo. at 10. Venue is therefore proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

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

Smith v. New York State Unified Court Systems · filed 2025-08-08(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Queens County, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the Eastern District of New York.

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

Horton v. State Farm Insurance · filed 2025-08-11(b)(2)

State Farm argues that venue is proper in the Southern District of Ohio as the property at issue is located there, the alleged damage occurred there, and the alleged violations of the insurance policy pertain to the Ohio property. (ECF No. 4, PageID.34.) Horton does not contradict State Farm on this point, and the Court ultimately concludes that the case could have originally been brought in the Southern District of Ohio.

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

Dobane v. Napolitano · filed 2025-08-19(b)(2)

Because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in New Jersey, venue is proper under Section 1391(b)(2) in the District of New Jersey.

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

Pratt v. South Central Recovery, LLC · filed 2025-08-25(b)(2)

Because this suit arises out of the repossession, Plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to establish that a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this District.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue in a suit against federal officers or agencies where a substantial part of the events underlying the claim occurred, including events that led to a challenged administrative proceeding.

The Dutra Group v. National Labor Relations Board · filed 2025-08-27(e)(1)(B)

Taking into account, however, the underlying events culminating in the ULP Complaint, the court agrees with Dutra that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the Eastern District of Texas. Accordingly, the court finds that venue is proper pursuant to § 1391(e)(1)(B).

Section 1391(b)(2) requires substantial events giving rise to the claim to occur in the district; the court treated the alleged installation of tracking tools in New Jersey as more significant than a patient’s website use in New York.

IN RE CITYMD DATA PRIVACY LITIGATION · filed 2025-09-02(b)(2)

However, mindful of the Second Circuit’s emphasis of “substantial” in construing the venue statute, the installation and configuration of Trackers on the Website is a more significant “material” event given Plaintiffs’ allegations.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) places venue for a claim of delayed agency processing where the alleged delay or inaction occurred, rather than where the crime supporting the application occurred.

Ahir v. Mayorkas · filed 2025-09-02(e)(1)(B)

However, the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claim are USCIS’s alleged delays and inaction on Plaintiffs’ application. ... The fact that Krutikakumari was the victim of a crime does not give rise to Plaintiffs’ claim that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the processing of their U visa application. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to allege any facts showing that the events giving rise to their claim occurred in this district.