28 U.S.C. § 1391

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against a federal agency where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Competitive Enterprise Institute v. United States Environmental Protection Agency · filed 2014-09-04(e)(1)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because EPA is an agency of the United States and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to CEI’s claims occurred in the District of Columbia.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a federal question suit against a federal agency or official where a plaintiff resides or a substantial part of the events occurred.

Center for Environmental Science Accuracy and Reliability v. National Park Service · filed 2014-12-10(e)(1)

In actions raising a federal question by naming as a defendant a federal agency or United States official in his or her official capacity, venue is proper in any judicial district where (1) “a defendant in the action resides;” (2) “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is subject of the action is situated;” or (3) a “plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). Both plaintiffs are residents of California, see Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2, and challenge federal agency actions involving the Hetch Hetchy Project, which is located in the Eastern District of California, id., generally. Thus, the Federal Defendants correctly point out that this action “might have been brought” in the Eastern District of California.

Section 1391(e)(1)(A) does not apply to a company merely because it operates as a government contractor.

Sallyport Global Services, Ltd. v. Arkel International, LLC · filed 2015-01-26(e)(1)(A)

The defendant incorrectly cites as a support 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A), which is the subsection in the venue statute applicable only to “[a]ctions where defendant is officer or employee of the United States.” Even if the defendant operates as a government contractor, this does not make this company an officer, employee or agency of the United States.

Section 1391(e) permits venue for a suit against a federal officer in a district where the officer performs a significant amount of official duties.

Vasser v. Shinseki · filed 2014-11-04(e)

When an officer or agency head performs a “significant amount” of his or her official duties in the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia is a proper district for venue. ... The Court therefore concludes that under the first prong of § 1391(e), venue is proper in the District of Columbia.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits a suit against a federal agency or official in a district where a substantial part of the underlying events occurred or, if no real property is involved, where the plaintiff resides.

Alaska Wilderness League v. Jewell · filed 2015-04-17(e)(1)

Civil actions like this one against a federal government agency or official may be heard in any district where, among other things, “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 . . . the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). ... The government has therefore cleared its first transfer hurdle: this Court is convinced that the League could have filed its complaint in the first instance in the District of Alaska.

Section 1391(e) permits venue in a suit against federal officers where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Pearson v. Rodriguez · filed 2016-03-31(e)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), for a civil action in which a defendant is an officer' or employee of the United States, venue is proper in any judicial district where (1) “a defendant in the action resides,” (2) “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” or (3) “the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” Here, as defendants assert, plaintiffs’ action could have been brought in the Eastern District of Virginia; ... Having determined that this action might have been brought in the Eastern District of Virginia, the Court must now determine whether this action should be transferred to that jurisdiction.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against federal officers or employees where a defendant resides, substantial events giving rise to the claim occurred, or substantial property at issue is located.

Boyd v. United States of America · filed 2016-07-22(e)(1)

If, as in this case, a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States, venue is proper in the place where he resides, or in the place where “a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). Because the plaintiff does not identify the FBI agents and Assistant United States Attorneys allegedly responsible for the seizure of his property, the Court cannot determine whether any of these defendants can be found in the District of Columbia. None of the real property identified in the Indictment or subsequent sentencing court orders is located in the District of Columbia, and the complaint does not allege that any of the acts or omissions giving rise to the plaintiff’s claims occurred in this district. For these reasons, the motion to dismiss for lack of venue is well taken.

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

Saravia v. Sessions · filed 2017-11-20(e)(1)

The second inquiry is somewhat closer, but the Court ultimately concludes that only an insubstantial portion of the events giving rise to J.G. and F.E’s claims occurred in this district.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue where a plaintiff resides for official-capacity claims against federal officers or employees, but does not apply to damages claims against them in their individual capacities.

Dionne v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, et al. · filed 2017-11-21(e)(1)

28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) authorizes a plaintiff to sue an officer or employee of the United States for actions taken in an official capacity in the district where the plaintiff resides, but this provision does not apply here because Dionne has sued the defendants for damages in their individual capacities.

Section 1391(e) applies to actions against a federal officer or employee and does not provide a basis for venue when none is sued.

Doe ex rel. Doe v. Boyertown Area School District · filed 2017-08-25(e)

Again, the plaintiffs reference 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) as a basis for venue, but that subsection only pertains to "[ajctions where [a] defendant is officer or employee of the United States[.]’’ 28 U.S.p. § 1391(e), As previously indicated, it does riot appear that the plaintiffs include a claim against an officer or employee of the United States.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against a federal officer or employee where a defendant resides, substantial events occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Aishat v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2018-02-12(e)(1)

More specifically, where a defendant “is an officer or employee of the United States,” venue is proper in any district in which: “A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . , or (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” The Eastern District of Texas checks all three boxes.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against a federal agency where the agency resides or a substantial part of the events occurred.

Air Transp. Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric. · filed 2018-03-28(e)(1)

Venue is proper because Plaintiffs and the Department of Agriculture, APHIS's parent agency, reside in the District of Columbia and a substantial part of the events at issue occurred in the District.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against a federal officer or employee where a defendant resides, substantial events occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Nabaya v. Aber · filed 2018-03-31(e)(1)

The Complaint must also be dismissed because the District of Columbia is not a proper venue for this action. ... But the Complaint is devoid of facts that would justify venue under any of these avenues.

Section 1391(e) permits an action against U.S. Government officers in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Mahmood v. Nielsen · filed 2018-05-09(e)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), venue for actions against U.S. Government officers is appropriate in any district where "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." All four of Plaintiff's applications for a waiver of inadmissibility were processed and decided by USCIS in Manhattan. See ECF Nos. 25-3, 25-6, 25-8, & 30, Ex. B. Accordingly, venue for Plaintiff's INA claim is appropriate in this District.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits a suit against the federal government in a district where a plaintiff resides.

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Ross · filed 2018-05-10(e)(1)(C)

Under the general venue statute, venue in a suit against the federal government will lie in any district in which a plaintiff resides. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C). At least one Plaintiff, Conservation Law Foundation, has its principal place of business in Boston. See CLF Compl., ¶ 15. Section 1404(a)'s threshold requirement is thus satisfied.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits venue in a suit against the federal government in a district where a plaintiff resides.

Stewart v. Azar · filed 2018-04-10(e)(1)(C)

They easily clear this hurdle, as venue in a suit against the federal government will lie in any district in which a plaintiff resides.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits venue in a federal government suit when at least one plaintiff resides in the district.

Ms. L. v. Immigration · filed 2018-06-06(e)(1)(C)

There is no dispute Ms. L. was resident in this district when the original Complaint was filed. Thus, venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C).

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue when at least one named defendant is a federal officer or employee and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the district.

W.S.R. v. Sessions · filed 2018-07-09(e)(1)

To trigger venue under § 1391(e)(1), only one named defendant needs to be an officer or employee of the United States or any federal agency.

Section 1391(e) permits venue in a suit against federal officers acting in their official capacity in the district where the plaintiff resides, if no real property is involved.

Ngonga v. Sessions · filed 2018-07-25(e)

As Plaintiffs have filed suit against federal officers and employees acting in their official capacity, venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). Under that section, venue is proper in any district in which “(A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . .[,] or (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” As Plaintiffs currently reside in Lovettsville, Virginia — within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Virginia — this preliminary hurdle is easily cleared.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue where a defendant federal agency is headquartered.

Elder Care Services, Inc. v. Corporation for National and Community Service · filed 2018-09-28(e)(1)

Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia because Defendant CNCS is headquartered in the District.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in an action against federal officers where a defendant resides, a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Mejia v. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement · filed 2018-10-01(e)(1)

In the absence of any evidence or arguments set forth by plaintiffs to the contrary, the Court must conclude that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) are not met and that transfer under Section 1404(a) therefore is inappropriate.

Section 1391(e)(1) does not permit venue based solely on a plaintiff's attorney's office when neither party resides in the district and no substantial part of the claim arose there.

Feng Chen ex rel. Jiang Jinghon v. Sessions · filed 2018-07-02(e)(1)

Because neither the defendants nor the plaintiffs reside there, the attorney's office location cannot support venue in this district unless a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred there.

Section 1391(e) permits a suit against a federal officer or employee in a district where a defendant resides, where the claim arose, or, if no real property is involved, where the plaintiff resides.

Gyau v. Sessions · filed 2018-10-15(e)

Answering the former turns on the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Under § 1391(e), a suit against a United States officer or employee can be brought in any district Where a defendant resides, where the underlying claim arose, or_if no real property is involved_where the plaintiff resides.

A plaintiff’s inability to file in another district does not make venue proper in a district that lacks a statutory basis for venue in a suit against a federal agency.

Greene v. United States Postal Service · filed 2018-12-18(e)(1)

His claim that he cannot, for undisclosed reasons, file this case in the Western District of Washington does not make venue proper in Colorado.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue where a federal officer sued in an official capacity resides.

Grant v. Mnuchin · filed 2019-03-29(e)(1)

Venue is appropriate in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because the Defendant, the Secretary of the Treasury sued in his official capacity, resides in the District of Columbia and Mr. Grant was employed by the IRS in the District of Columbia.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in an action against federal agencies or officers in a district where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the relevant events occurred.

Hight v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. · filed 2019-06-23(e)(1)

Moreover, venue is proper in the District of Columbia. ... Here, all the Defendants reside in the District of Columbia and the licensing decision that Plaintiff challenges was made by Defendants in the District of Columbia.

Section 1391(e) permits venue for a claim against a federal officer sued in his official capacity in a district where he conducts a significant amount of his official duties.

Edley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-07-18(e)

The Court finds that venue for the plaintiff’s FMLA claim is proper in this district under the first provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because, contrary to the defendant’s assertion that “this case has no ties to th[is] [d]istrict,” Def.’s Mem. at 5, the defendant “resides” in the District of Columbia, see Webster v. Mattis, 279 F. Supp. 3d 14, 19 (D.D.C. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Lamont v. Haig, 590 F.2d 1124, 1128 n.19 (D.C. Cir. 1978)) (stating that for venue purposes, a federal officer “resides where he conducts [a significant amount of] his official duties”).

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits a suit against a federal agency or official to be brought where the plaintiff resides if the action does not involve real property.

Portnov v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2019-09-03(e)(1)(C)

And even though this case does not involve real property, Portnov does not reside here.

Section 1391(e) permits venue in an action against a federal officer or agency where a defendant resides, a substantial part of the events occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Rote v. Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States · filed 2019-11-06(e)

Moreover—independent of the above analysis—venue is proper in the District of Oregon because most of the civil proceedings that form the basis for this action took place in Oregon, see id., and Mr. Rote resides in Oregon, id. ¶ 4.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits a federal agency or official action to be brought where a defendant resides, substantial events giving rise to the claim occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Neighbors Against Bison Slaughter v. National Park Service · filed 2019-11-14(e)(1)

In actions raising a federal question by naming as a defendant a federal agency or United States official in his or her official capacity, venue is proper in any judicial district where (1) “a defendant in the action resides;” (2) “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated;” or (3) a “plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). ... Wisely, the plaintiffs thus do not contest that they “could also have filed this case” in Montana.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against a federal officer where the officer performs official duties or where the claim arose.

McAfee LLC v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2019-11-15(e)(1)

The parties agree that McAfee could have brought the suit in the Central District of California because that is both “where a defendant resides” and “where the underlying claim arose.”

Section 1391(e)(1) governs venue in suits against federal agencies for official action.

Vuegen Technologies Inc v. Cissna · filed 2020-03-10(e)(1)

Venue is proper because CIS is a U.S. agency being sued for official action taken. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1); see also Dehaemers v. Wynne, 522 F. Supp. 2d 240, 248 (D.D.C. 2007); Hunter v. Johanns, 517 F. Supp. 2d 340, 344 (D.D.C. 2007).

Section 1391(e) governs venue for an official-capacity ADEA claim against a federal officer when the ADEA has no venue provision of its own.

King v. Shulkin · filed 2020-03-16(e)

The ADEA does not have its own venue provision; the general venue statute applies. Under this statute, an action may be brought against an officer or employee of the United States (in his official capacity) “in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (B) 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 (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). Thus, venue for Plaintiff’s ADEA claim lies in the District of Columbia, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Eastern District of Missouri (where King lived when this lawsuit was filed). Because venue does not lie in this District, King’s ADEA claim is subject to dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3).

Section 1391(e)(1) supports venue for a tribe’s suit against federal officials in a district containing much of its reservation, even when the disputed parcel lies in another district and defendants do not object.

Cherokee Nation, The v. Bernhardt · filed 2020-03-24(e)(1)

Although the 2.03-acre parcel lies within the Eastern District of Oklahoma, venue is proper in this district, which contains much of the Nation’s reservation. See Navajo Nation v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 918 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1254-56 (D.N.M. 2013) (giving substantial deference to a tribe’s chosen forum where the tribe’s reservation lands spanned multiple states). Plaintiffs assert venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), and defendants have raised no objection.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits a suit against a federal agency or official in a district where the defendant resides, substantial events giving rise to the claim occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

(PS) Davis v. Wilkie · filed 2020-08-12(e)(1)

Based on the contents of the complaint, the court has determined that this case was filed in the improper venue.

Section 1391(e) permits venue in a suit against a federal agency or officer in the district where the plaintiff resides, if no real property is involved.

Salha v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2020-09-11(e)

In this case, venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia under section 1391(e), as that is where Salha resides.

Section 1391(e)(1) provides independent grounds for venue in suits against federal agencies or officials based on a defendant’s residence or where a substantial part of the events occurred.

Onaghise v. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2020-09-22(e)(1)

When a federal agency or official is the defendant, venue is proper in any judicial district in which “a defendant in the action resides” or where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). These are independent bases for venue. And they both apply here.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue for suits against federal officers acting in their official capacity where a defendant resides, substantial events occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Volovets v. Trump · filed 2020-10-15(e)(1)

The applicable venue provision for Plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the APA, and Bivens can be found at 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). ... Plaintiff does not allege that President Trump, Secretary Pompeo, Attorney General Barr, or Chargé Kvien resides in this judicial district, that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims arose in this judicial district, or that the relevant records are situated within this judicial district. Thus, this Court is not a proper venue for any of Plaintiff’s claims.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits a suit against a federal agency in the district where the plaintiff resides, but the plaintiff must allege residence there to establish venue on that basis.

Jones v. The Deparment of Justice · filed 2020-10-29(e)(1)

In the absence of an allegation that Plaintiff is a resident of the Southern District of California, however, venue is not proper here under the third prong of 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(e)(1).

Section 1391(e)(1) permits a suit against federal officers in a district where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Efficientip, Inc. v. Cuccinelli · filed 2020-11-12(e)(1)

Where the defendants are officers of the United States, as is the case here, an action may be brought in any judicial district in which “a defendant in the action resides” or “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). Here, at least one defendant—Gregory Richardson, the Director of the Texas Service Center—resides in the Northern District of Texas. See Compl. ⁋ 14. More, EfficientIP’s claim arises from the denial of its petition, which occurred in that district.

Section 1391(e)(1)(A) permits venue where a federal officer performs a significant amount of official duties.

Larrabee v. Braithwaite · filed 2020-11-20(e)(1)(A)

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A), as the Secretary of the Navy performs a significant amount of his official duties in the District of Columbia.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits an action against federal agencies and officials in a district where a defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Montgomery v. Barr · filed 2020-11-25(e)(1)

To begin with, Montgomery could have brought this action in the Northern District of Texas. Where the defendants are federal agencies and officials, an action may be brought in any judicial district in which “a defendant in the action resides” or “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). Here, at least one defendant, FMC Carswell’s Warden, resides in the Northern District of Texas.

Section 1391(e) permits an action against a federal officer or employee acting in an official capacity in the district where the defendant resides or the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

United States v. Perales · filed 2021-01-06(e)

Furthermore, where the defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) provides that the action may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides or where the events giving rise to the claim occurred. As a result, the proper venue for Perales’s conditions of confinement claim appears to be the District of Minnesota, where he is confined and where the alleged violations occurred.

Section 1391(e) permits an action against a federal officer or employee acting in an official capacity in the district where the defendant resides or where the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

United States v. O'Laughlin · filed 2021-03-01(e)

And, where the defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) provides that the action may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides or where the events giving rise to the claim occurred. Therefore, the proper venue for such claims is the District of Minnesota, where Defendant is confined and where the alleged violations occurred.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits a suit against a federal officer acting in an official capacity where a defendant resides, substantial events giving rise to the claim occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Li v. Miller · filed 2021-03-24(e)(1)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), a lawsuit “in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity” may be brought in a judicial district: (1) where “a defendant in the action resides”; (2) where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”; or (3) where “the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” ... The Court agrees that the District of Nebraska is an appropriate venue because it is the location where NSC processed and denied Plaintiffs’ request. ... The Court also agrees that the Eastern District of Michigan is an appropriate venue because Plaintiffs “reside[]” there.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in an official-capacity suit against a federal officer where the officer officially resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Bahena v. Renaud · filed 2021-05-06(e)(1)

As an initial matter, the Court is unpersuaded that venue exists in this district. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), when a civil action is brought against an officer of the United States in her official capacity, venue lies in any district where “(A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . , or (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” Plaintiffs bear the burden to establish that venue is proper in this district. McCain v. Bank of Am., 13 F. Supp. 3d 45, 51 (D.D.C. 2014). Plaintiffs have failed to carry this burden.

Section 1391(e) permits venue where the plaintiff resides in an official-capacity suit against federal officers or employees if no real property is involved.

Claros v. Cowan · filed 2021-05-06(e)

As Plaintiffs have filed suit against federal officers and employees acting in their official capacity, venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). Under that section, venue is proper in any district in which “(A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . .[,] or (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” As Plaintiffs currently reside in Maryland, see ECF No. 1 (Complaint) at 1, this preliminary hurdle is easily cleared.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits venue in the plaintiff’s district of residence for an action against federal officers when no real property is involved.

Lin v. Renaud · filed 2021-05-19(e)(1)(C)

And the only court that clearly appears to be a proper venue is the Eastern District of New York, the judicial district in which Plaintiff resides. Accordingly, venue lies in the Eastern District of New York, see § 1391(e)(1)(C), and the Court therefore transfers this action to the Eastern District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits venue where the plaintiff resides in an action against a federal agency if no real property is involved.

Lin v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2021-05-21(e)(1)(C)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Eastern District of New York, see § 1391(e)(1)(C), and the Court therefore transfers this action to that court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(e)(1) permits an action against a federal agency in the district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, including where the agency adjudicated the challenged petition.

Wei Lai Development LLC v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2021-05-24(e)(1)

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

Section 1391(e)(1) makes the plaintiff’s district of residence a proper venue for this action against a federal agency.

Psv Enterprises, LLC v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2021-05-25(e)(1)

Venue is also proper in the District of North Dakota, because that is the district wherein PSV resides.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against the United States where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved; a prisoner's place of incarceration alone does not establish residence there.

Hornbeck v. United States of America · filed 2021-06-03(e)(1)

In the absence of an allegation that Plaintiff was domiciled in the Southern District of California prior to imprisonment, venue is improper even under the third prong of 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(e)(1).

Section 1391(e) makes venue improper in a suit against the United States when neither party resides in the district and no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there.

Gore v. United States · filed 2021-07-12(e)

This action does not fit into any one of the three categories of § 1391(e).

Section 1391(e)(1) permits a suit against a federal officer in a district where a defendant resides, a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Akinyode v. United States Department of Homeland Security · filed 2021-07-16(e)(1)

“A civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States” may “be brought in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) 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 (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). Given these parameters, Akinyode could have filed in the District of New Jersey, where he and defendant Correia reside and where the USCIS Field Office that has failed to adjudicate his petition is located.

For the ADEA claims against a federal official, § 1391(e)(1) did not permit venue in Kansas when the official, relevant events, and plaintiff were all elsewhere.

Laber v. United States Department of Defense · filed 2021-08-03(e)(1)

Venue is also improper as to Plaintiff’s ADEA claims involving those same 14 positions. ... Therefore, the general venue statute does not provide a basis for Plaintiff to bring his claims in this district.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against a federal agency or official where a defendant resides, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or the plaintiff resides.

Melnattur v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2021-08-23(e)(1)

In addition, Dr. Melnattur’s petition was processed and adjudicated by the NSC in Nebraska, meaning “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise” to this claim occurred in that state. ... Venue is thus doubly proper in the District of Nebraska.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against federal officers where a defendant resides, a substantial part of the events occurred, or the plaintiff resides.

Pike v. Rettig · filed 2021-09-09(e)(1)

Where defendants are federal officers, venue is proper in a district (1) where a defendant resides, (2) where a substantial part of the activities giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) where the plaintiff resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). ... Venue is not proper in this district. The plaintiff does not reside in the Southern District of Illinois and did not experience his problems getting his stimulus payments here. The defendants are unlikely to reside here since their jobs are far outside the district. Furthermore, it does not appear a substantial part—or even a miniscule part—of the activities giving rise to this case occurred in this district.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue for claims against federal officials in a district where the challenged agency action and alleged harms are centered.

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. United States Department of Interior · filed 2021-09-15(e)(1)

The Court is thus satisfied that these claims could have been filed in Utah. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in an official-capacity suit against a federal officer where a defendant resides, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or the plaintiff resides.

MYSLIMI v. BIDEN · filed 2021-09-16(e)(1)

Congress provides venue lies against “officer[s] or employee[s] of the United States . . . acting in [their] official capacity” in districts where: (1) a defendant resides, (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) where the plaintiff resides.

In suits against federal officials involving no real property, § 1391(e)(1) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Sandvik Mining and Construction USA, LLC v. Garland · filed 2021-10-13(e)(1)

That provision provides that a civil action involving no real property may be brought in any judicial district in which (1) a defendant resides, (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or (3) a plaintiff resides. ... Because Sandvik seeks Rezende’s employment in the Northern District ... of Georgia, where it engages in significant operations, a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiffs’ claim occurred in that district, enabling suit there.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits a suit against a federal agency or official involving no real property to be brought in a district where a plaintiff resides.

Roh v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services San Diego Field Office · filed 2021-11-01(e)(1)

Venue for suits against federal agencies or federal officials in their official capacity, such as this one, is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (e)(1). ... Here, at least the third of these options would have supported venue in the transferee district: the plaintiffs admittedly reside in the Southern District of California, in San Diego.

Section 1391(e)(iii) permits an ADEA action against a federal officer or agency in the district where the plaintiff resides, the defendant resides, or the cause of action arose.

APONTE v. MCCARTHY · filed 2021-11-05(e)(iii)

Venue for ADEA actions brought against an officer, employee, or agency of the United States is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(iii), pursuant to which an ADEA action may be instituted in the District where plaintiff resides, where the defendant resides, or where the cause of action arose.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in an action against federal officers or agencies where a defendant resides, where substantial events occurred, or where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Decker v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · filed 2021-11-18(e)(1)

Venue for a federal civil action against a federal officer or a federal agency is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). ... When considering the residence of the parties in this case, venue is proper in three different federal judicial districts. ... The action could have been brought in any one of these federal judicial districts.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits a suit against a federal agency or official in the district where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Rasool v. Mayorkas · filed 2021-11-23(e)(1)

Section 1391(e)(1) provides that a plaintiff may bring a civil action “in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . or (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” ... Thus, Rasool could have brought the case in the Eastern District.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits an action against a federal official to be brought in the district where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Makinano v. Jaddou · filed 2021-12-01(e)(1)(C)

Accordingly, venue lies in the Eastern District of New York, see § 1391(e)(1)(C), and the Court therefore transfers this action to that court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in an official-capacity suit against a federal officer in a district where the officer resides and does not permit venue in a district with no qualifying residence or substantial claim-related events.

Fantasia v. Blinken · filed 2022-01-04(e)(1)

Plaintiff alleges that Secretary Blinken resides in Washington, D.C. Thus, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(e)(1)(A). Because Plaintiff does not allege that he or Secretary Blinken resides in this judicial district, or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims arose in this judicial district, venue is not proper in this court under Section 1391(e)(1)(B) or (C).

Section 1391(e) permits an official-capacity suit against a federal officer where the defendant resides, a substantial part of the events occurred, or the plaintiff resides.

Laber v. Austin · filed 2022-01-26(e)

Under none of the three venue options of § 1391(e) is the Eastern District of Missouri a proper venue.

Section 1391(e) sets venue criteria for actions against federal officers or employees; it does not waive venue requirements.

Royal Continental Nubian Sudan Government v. J.Z.G. · filed 2022-02-22(e)(1)

First of all, § 1391(e) does not contain a “waiver of venue” provision as plaintiffs assert and instead identifies specific criteria for establishing proper venue for an action brought against an officer or employee of the United States.

Section 1391(e) permits a suit against federal officers acting in their official capacity to be brought in the district where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Patel v. Garland · filed 2022-02-24(e)

Because Patel has filed suit against officers and employees acting in their official capacity, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) governs the Court’s analysis. That statute provides that venue is proper in any district in which “(A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . [,] or (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” As Plaintiff currently resides in Piedmont, South Carolina — within the jurisdiction of the District of South Carolina — and no real property is involved, this preliminary hurdle is easily cleared.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits a suit against a federal agency or officer in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Okoli v. Tucker · filed 2022-02-25(e)(1)(B)

Venue does appear to be proper, under section 1391(e)(1)(B), in the District of Massachusetts, where the claims arose.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits a civil action against a federal officer to be brought in the district where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

King v. Yellen · filed 2022-04-13(e)(1)(C)

The only court that clearly appears to be a proper venue is the Western District of New York, the judicial district in which Plaintiff resides. Accordingly, venue lies in the Western District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 1391(1)(C), and the Court therefore transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, see 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(e) permits venue in the district where the federal agency is processing the application at issue.

Silva v. Mayorkas · filed 2022-05-10(e)

Defendants correctly point out—and Mr. Silva does not dispute—that this case “might have been brought” in the District of Nebraska because Mr. Silva’s I-601 application is being processed there.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits an action against a federal officer sued in an official capacity in a district where the defendant resides, substantial events occurred, or a plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Kelemete v. Haaland · filed 2022-05-10(e)(1)

Specifically, the Court finds that venue is improper here under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(e)(1), which provides that, in a civil action, such as this one, where a ... defendant is an officer of the United States acting in his or her official capacity, the action may be brought in any judicial district in which (1) a defendant resides, (2) a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred, or (3) a plaintiff resides if real property is not involved in the action.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a district where a federal official defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Roh v. Shultz · filed 2022-06-14(e)(1)

In actions that raise a federal question by naming as a defendant a federal agency or United States official in his or her official capacity, venue is proper in any judicial district where: (1) “a defendant in the action resides;” (2) “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is subject of the action is situated;” or (3) a “plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). ... Defendants are thus correct that this action “might have been brought” in the proposed transferee district.

Section 1391(e) permits venue in a suit against federal defendants where substantial events giving rise to the claim occurred or where a plaintiff with standing resides.

Center for Biological Diversity v. Spellmon · filed 2022-08-18(e)

For claims against the United States or its officers or agencies, venue is proper in any judicial district in which “(A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” or “(C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). ... Given that no project has been identified that could impact ESA species or habitat in Montana, the Court determines that no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ ESA claim has occurred in the District of Montana. ... Given that MEIC, the only Montana-resident Plaintiff, cannot establish standing to maintain the ESA claim, the District of Montana does not represent an appropriate venue for Plaintiffs’ ESA claim.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against a federal agency or official in the district where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Alabrash v. United States Department of Homeland Security · filed 2022-11-15(e)(1)

As Plaintiff resides in the Eastern District of Texas, and the USCIS Field Office that has failed to adjudicate his Asylum Application––on which Plaintiff now seeks to compel action––is in the Eastern District of Texas, the case might have been brought there.

Section 1391(e) governs venue in suits against federal officers, and an agency’s headquarters alone does not establish that a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim occurred there.

Dhimar v. Blinken · filed 2022-12-08(e)

But, because he names officers of the United States as defendants, the appropriate venue statute here is § 1391(e). ... The sole connection of Dhimar’s case to this State is the fact that USCIS is headquartered here. However, as the Court has held before, that fact alone is insufficient to establish proper venue in Maryland.

Section 1391(e) applies only to suits against executive branch agencies and employees, so it does not extend to suits against federal judges.

LAWYERS FOR FAIR RECIPROCAL ADMISSION v. UNITED STATES · filed 2023-01-10(e)

§ 1391(e) only applies to lawsuits against agencies and employees of the executive branch.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in an official-capacity suit against a federal officer where the defendant resides, a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Hoffler v. Kendall · filed 2023-01-12(e)(1)

The District of Columbia is an improper venue for this action. ... Accordingly, the only proper venues for this action are the Eastern District of Virginia, the District of Maryland, and the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Section 1391 does not establish venue where a federal agency has regional offices or might conduct a future interview when the alleged failure to adjudicate occurred elsewhere.

Trujillo v. JADDOU · filed 2023-03-06(b)(2), (e)(1)

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to establish that venue lies in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) or (e), in the interests of justice, the Undersigned grants Defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the District of Columbia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Section 1391(e)(1) permits a suit seeking to compel USCIS to adjudicate a petition in the district where the adjudicating office is located.

Anukwu v. Jaddou · filed 2023-06-13(e)(1)

As noted in that case, a plaintiff can bring this type of case in the judicial district where the USCIS office adjudicating the petition is located. Moreover, Plaintiff should have brought this claim there, rather than in Maryland.

Section 1391(e)(1) does not make venue proper merely because a challenged federal policy applies beyond the district.

Buckler v. Austin, III Do not docket in this case. Case electronically transferred to the Western · filed 2023-08-02(e)(1)

Section 1391(e) does not exempt actions that implicate governmental policies extending beyond the district in which the action is brought.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits a suit against a federal officer or employee in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved; it does not establish venue in a particular state-court county.

Fiorito v. Anderson · filed 2023-08-10(e)(1)(C)

Mr. Fiorito justifies his choice of venue “because plaintiffs [sic] legal residence is here” — a reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C), which permits a lawsuit against a federal officer or employee to be brought in the judicial district where “the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” But this is a justification for the District of Minnesota being the correct venue, not the Hennepin County District Court.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against federal officers based on a defendant’s residence, substantial events giving rise to the claim, or the plaintiff’s residence; a defendant against whom no cognizable claim is stated does not count for venue.

Rojas v. Garland · filed 2023-09-06(e)(1)

Venue in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is not proper because (1) the only defendant who resides in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania—Mr. McShane—is not a proper defendant and need not be considered for purposes of venue, (2) the events giving rise to Ms. Vargas’s claims did not occur in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and (3) Ms. Vargas does not reside within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue where a plaintiff resides when the plaintiff sues a federal officer and the dispute does not involve real property.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau · filed 2023-09-08(e)(1)

The court also denies defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue because plaintiff Longview Cham- ber of Commerce is a resident of this district, plausibly alleged (and has now shown) standing, and sues a federal officer in a dis- pute not involving real property. In such a case, venue is proper in any district where the plaintiff resides.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits an official-capacity suit against a federal officer or employee in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Marquardt, Nancy v. McDonough, Denis · filed 2023-11-06(e)(1)

As relevant here, where the defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any of its agencies and is sued in his official capacity, venue is proper where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). Because Marquardt alleges that the underlying events occurred at the VA in Milwaukee, venue is certainly proper in the Eastern District for her ADEA claim.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against a federal agency where the defendant resides, substantial events occurred, relevant property is located, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Powder River Basin Resource Council v. Department of the Interior · filed 2023-11-06(e)(1)

When a defendant is a federal agency, venue is proper in any judicial district where (i) “a defendant in the action resides;” (ii) “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is subject of the action is situated;” or (iii) a “plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). ... In sum, Private-Intervenors have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate that this action might have been brought in the District of Wyoming or to show that the private interest and public interest factors weight in their favor, and consequently, their motion to transfer will be denied.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits venue where the plaintiff resides in an action against a federal officer or employee if no real property is involved.

Singh v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2023-12-01(e)(1)(C)

Venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C) because this is an action against an officer or employee of the United States, no real property is involved, and Singh resides within the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Section 1391(e) permits venue for claims against a federal officer in a district where a substantial part of the events occurred or the plaintiff resides.

Liu v. Becerra · filed 2023-12-12(e)

Dr. Liu’s remaining claims under the U.S. Constitution, the ADEA, and § 1981 are subject to the general venue rule, which provides that civil actions may be brought in any district in which: ... (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) the plaintiff resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). ... However, Dr. Liu cannot credibly challenge that venue is proper in Maryland as well.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue for an official-capacity suit against a federal officer where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved; for venue purposes, a prisoner resides where incarcerated.

Agofsky v. Bureau of Prisons · filed 2024-02-02(e)(1)

Because the court finds that Plaintiff resides in the Southern District of Indiana, and no real property is involved in this action, venue is proper in that district and the court need not reach the alternative bases.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue where property at issue is located or, if the action does not involve real property, where the plaintiff resides.

ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR · filed 2024-02-23(e)(1)(B), (e)(1)(C)

For starters, there is no dispute that this case could have been brought in the District of Alaska. ECF 10 at 4; ECF 14 at 2. The Refuge—i.e., the “property that is the subject of the action” per the terms of Plaintiff’s cancelled leases—is situated in Alaska. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B). And even if this action were characterized as one that does not involve real property, Plaintiff resides in Alaska. See id. § 1391(e)(1)(C); ECF 1 ¶ 3.

For claims against federal officers over asylum application delays, § 1391(e)(1) permits venue where the applicant resides or where the USCIS office processing the application is located.

Yousefi v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2024-03-01(e)(1)

The Court finds that the non-resident Plaintiffs could have brought suit in the district where they reside or in the district where the USCIS offices processing their applications are located. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). For each Plaintiff, the relevant USCIS office makes decisions about each application, rendering that office the place where the “acts or omissions” giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred.

For claims over delayed asylum applications, § 1391(e)(1) permits venue where the applicant resides or where the USCIS office processing the application is located.

Vapoori v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2024-03-01(e)(1)

The Court finds that the non-resident Plaintiffs could have brought suit in the district where they reside or in the district where the USCIS offices processing their applications are located. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). For each Plaintiff, the relevant USCIS office makes decisions about each application, rendering that office the place where the “acts or omissions” giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B); see also Manne, 2022 WL 102853, at *6.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits a suit against a federal agency in a district where the plaintiff resides or where a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Zamani v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2024-03-01(e)(1)

The Court finds that the non-resident Plaintiffs could have brought suit in the district where they reside or in the district where the USCIS offices processing their applications are located. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). For each Plaintiff, the relevant USCIS office makes decisions about each application, rendering that office the place where the “acts or omissions” giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against a federal officer where a defendant resides, a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Jafari v. United States Department of State · filed 2024-03-12(e)(1)

In cases against a federal officer, venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), which provides venue is proper “in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . or (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” ... After review, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice, the Court will exercise its discretion under § 1404(a) and transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue where the USCIS office making decisions on an asylum application is located.

Chenari v. US Citizenship & Immigration Service · filed 2024-03-01(e)(1)(B)

For each Plaintiff, the relevant USCIS office makes decisions about each application, rendering that office the place where the “acts or omissions” giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against a federal official or agency where a defendant resides, a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or a plaintiff resides.

PRAJAPATI v. BLINKEN · filed 2024-05-07(e)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), a suit against a federal official or agency may be brought in a district where either (A) a defendant resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or (C) a plaintiff resides. Defendants argue, and the Court agrees, that Plaintiffs have not alleged that substantial events relating to this lawsuit occurred in the District of Columbia.

Section 1391(e) permits a suit against a federal agency or officer in a district where a defendant resides, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, or a plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau · filed 2024-05-28(e)

A civil action against a government agency or officer in their official capacity may be brought in a “judicial district in which any defendant resides,” “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” or where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). Here, both Defendants and three of the six Plaintiffs reside in Washington, D.C., where the Rule was promulgated.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits an official-capacity suit against federal officers in a district where a defendant resides or, when no real property is involved, where the plaintiff resides.

Liu v. Mayorkas · filed 2024-06-14(e)(1)

Venue is proper in the District of Maryland under both (A) and (C), because Defendants Jaddou and Hussey reside in the District of Maryland and because Mr. Liu is a resident of Maryland.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in an action against federal agencies or officers where a defendant resides, a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

SHAQRAN v. BLINKEN · filed 2024-06-27(e)(1)

In an action against federal agencies and officers, venue is proper where “(A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) 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 (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). None of these conditions is met here.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits a civil action against a federal agency or officer to be brought in a district where a plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Association of Washington Business v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency · filed 2024-06-28(e)(1)(C)

Per 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C), a civil action against “an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity” may “be brought in any judicial district in which” ... “the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” It is uncontested that at least two of the plaintiffs reside within the Western District of Washington. See Compl. ¶¶ 17, 18; Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Transfer at 2, Dkt. 25. As such, this case could have been brought in the Western District of Washington, so § 1404(a)’s threshold requirement is satisfied.

Section 1391(e) permits a suit against a federal agency in a district where a defendant resides, a substantial part of the events occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

WILLIAMS v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE · filed 2024-07-10(e)

Here, no party is alleged to reside in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and no wrong giving rise to the Complaint is alleged to have occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania. ... While it is unclear why Plaintiff chose to bring this case in the Western District of Pennsylvania, it is apparent that venue is improper in this Court.

Section 1391(e) permits venue in the plaintiff’s home district for a suit against a federal officer when no real property is involved.

Saleh v. Mayorkas · filed 2024-07-12(e)

As a preliminary matter, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) venue would be proper in the Western District of Louisiana because the plaintiff resides there.

Section 1391(e) permits a suit against a federal official where the defendant resides, substantial events giving rise to the claim occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

West Coast Regional Center, Inc. v. Jaddou · filed 2024-07-19(e)

In a suit against the federal government and federal officials, venue is determined according to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). That section provides that a suit against the federal government or a federal official acting in their official capacity can be brought in any judicial district where: (1) “a defendant in the action resides;” (2) “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated;” or (3) “the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” West Coast has failed to establish that venue in this District is proper under any of these prongs.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against federal officials where a defendant resides, substantial events occurred, relevant property is situated, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Kulla v. Mayorkas · filed 2024-09-13(e)(1)

Under Section 1391(e), in “civil actions in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority,” venue is proper in a United States district court if (1) a defendant in the action resides in the district, (B) 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 in the district, or (C) the plaintiff, if no real property is involved in the action, resides in the district. 28 U.S.C § 1391(e)(1). ... For these reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in suits against federal agencies or officials where a defendant resides, where substantial events occurred, or where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Bennett v. Bureau of Prisons · filed 2024-10-22(e)(1)

The proper venue for plaintiff’s action accordingly may be in the District of Connecticut or in the District of Columbia but not in the Northern District of California.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits venue in a suit against federal officers in the plaintiff’s home district when no real property is involved.

Botnari v. Garland · filed 2024-11-29(e)(1)(C)

The suit could have been brought in the District of Nevada under subsection (C) because both Plaintiffs reside in Nevada and the case does not involve real property.

Section 1391(e) permits venue in a suit against a federal agency where a plaintiff resides, a substantial part of the underlying events occurred, or the agency resides; a party without standing cannot establish venue through its residence.

AF, Inc. v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2025-01-27(e)

In actions against U.S. agencies, venue is generally proper “in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) 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 (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). ... Having concluded that AF—the only party with a connection to Michigan in this case—lacks standing, USCIS is correct that venue is improper in this district.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits an action against a federal officer or agency to be brought in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Dothan Hospitality, LLC v. United States Small Business Administration · filed 2025-02-19(e)(1)

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs could have filed this action in the Southern District of Mississippi. In “[a] civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof,” the action may “be brought in any judicial district in which . . . a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in an action against a federal officer where a defendant resides, a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or the plaintiff resides.

EMRIT v. SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE OF THE FBI · filed 2025-03-10(e)(1)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) civil actions against an officer or employee of the United States may “be brought in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, ... or (C) the plaintiff resides.” ... Ultimately, no facts are alleged in the Complaint to support venue in the District of New Jersey.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits a suit against a federal officer in a district where a defendant resides, substantial events giving rise to the claim occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Maul v. Jaddou · filed 2025-03-11(e)(1)

Defendants have shown that the Eastern District of Virginia is a viable venue as it is (1) where Defendant Reffel resides in his official capacity, see ECF No. 1, at 3; (2) where the decision-making process for adjudicating Mrs. Maul’s application occurred, see Manne, 2022 WL 102853, at *6 (“The decisionmaking process for adjudicating Plaintiffs’ visa applications occurs in USCIS service centers and field and regional offices, and any delay or improper denial—that is the ‘events or omissions’ giving rise to their claims—occurred in the judicial districts covering those offices.”); and (3) where Mr. Maul resides, see ECF No. 1, at 2.

Section 1391(e) permits venue for an ADEA claim against a federal official where the plaintiff resides or a substantial part of the events occurred.

Varmaa v. Yellen · filed 2025-03-17(e)

Venue for that claim is proper in (1) the district where the defendant resides, (2) the district where a substantial part of the events occurred, or (3) the district where the plaintiff resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). The Plaintiff alleges that she resides in “Bethesda, MD.” Compl. ¶ 1. And she alleges that all of the wrongdoing took place in Maryland. See id. ¶ 3. So venue is proper in Maryland for the ADEA claim as well.

Section 1391(e) permits venue in an action against federal officers based on a defendant’s residence, a substantial part of the relevant events or property, or the plaintiff’s residence when no real property is involved.

Al Hasbani v. Mayorkas · filed 2025-04-14(e)

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for improper venue for failing to meet the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). ... Here, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet all these elements. The only defendant that Plaintiff claims resides in the district is Riddle, the USCIS Director of the Chicago Field Office. But Plaintiff does not provide any factual allegations supporting his claim that the USCIS Chicago Field Office is involved in the adjudication of his Form I-589. Instead, both Plaintiff’s complaint and Defendants’ motion to dismiss note that the official notice of receipt issued by USCIS for Plaintiff’s Form I-589 indicates that the application is being processed at the USCIS Los Angeles, California Asylum Office. (See Dkt. 1, 8.) Finally, Plaintiff resides in Phoenix, Arizona, which is outside of this district court’s jurisdiction, and there is no property within this district involved in this dispute. ... For these reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue.

Section 1391(e)(1)(A) permits venue in a district where a defendant federal agency resides, and federal agencies can be said to reside in every judicial district.

Valenzuela v. DOJ/FBOP · filed 2025-04-30(e)(1)(A)

The defendant federal agencies can be said to reside in every judicial district in the country. Venue is therefore proper under Section 1391(e)(1)(A) in this District, the Eastern District of New York, the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue where a substantial part of the events giving rise to a claim against a federal official occurred.

Reeves v. Bondi · filed 2025-05-14(e)(1)(B)

Thus, while it remains unclear whether this court is a proper venue for this action under Section 1391(e)(1)(B), it is clear that the United States District Court for the Eastern of New York is a proper venue for this action under that provision.

Section 1391(e)(1) does not establish venue in a district where no defendant resides, no substantial part of the events occurred, and the plaintiff does not reside.

Kiyaroudi v. Blinken · filed 2025-05-19(e)(1)

Defendants argue that venue is improper in this District because none of the three options for venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) apply in this case. (Mot. at 5-7.) The court agrees.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits a claim against a federal agency or official to be brought in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to it occurred.

Bass v. National Survey on Drug Use and Mental Health National Institute of Health · filed 2025-06-03(e)(1)(B)

Thus, while it remains unclear whether this court1 is a proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims under the APA, under Section 1391(e)(1)(B), it is clear that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey is a proper venue for Plaintiff’s claims under the APA, under that provision.

Section 1391(e)(1) does not permit venue for a suit against federal officials in a district where no defendant or plaintiff resides and none of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Alston v. Wigenton · filed 2025-06-05(e)(1)

Because none of the defendants resides in this District, the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims did not occur in this District, and Plaintiff does not reside in this District, venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(e).

Section 1391(e)(1) makes venue proper in a civil action against federal officers in a judicial district where a plaintiff resides.

Garjani, Mehraveh v. Flores, Pete R. · filed 2025-06-30(e)(1)

Garjani is a proper plaintiff in this action, so her residence in this district means that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).

Section 1391(e) permits an ADEA claim against a federal officer acting in an official capacity to be brought where the defendant resides, a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or the plaintiff resides.

King v. Raimondo · filed 2025-07-15(e)

Thus, an ADEA claim “against an officer or employee of the United States acting in his official capacity may be brought where (1) a defendant in the action resides, (2) a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim arose, or (3) the plaintiff resides.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)). ... Here, Mr. King’s filings establish the District of Columbia as a proper venue. Although none of the relevant events occurred in the District of Columbia and Mr. King resides in Arlington, Virginia, the Defendant resides in Washington, D.C., where the Department is headquartered.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in an official-capacity suit against federal officers where a defendant officially resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Molina v. Joyce · filed 2025-08-05(e)(1)

Because the defendants are officers or employees of the United States sued in their official capacity, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) governs. ... Defendant Joyce’s residence is in this District because his official duties are performed at ICE’s New York Field Office, located in this District. ... Moreover, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District.

Section 1391(e)(1) allows venue in a suit against a federal agency based on where the agency resides, where relevant events occurred, or where the plaintiff resided when filing.

Samuels v. Small Business Administration · filed 2025-08-12(e)(1)

The Court also notes that it fully agrees with Judge Stein’s alternative venue analysis. See Dkt. 39 at 19-22. The Small Business Administration resides in Washington, D.C., not this District; Samuels does not allege that any part of the events giving rise to his claims occurred in this District; and Samuels did not live in this District at the time he filed the operative complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).

Section 1391(e)(1) permits an action against federal agencies and officers to be brought in a district where a defendant resides.

Prisoners' Legal Services of New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2025-08-25(e)(1)

And this case could have been brought in the Western District because at least two “[D]efendant[s] in the action reside[]” in that district.

Section 1391(e)(1)(B) permits venue in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.

Valine · filed 2025-10-10(e)(1)(B)

Venue also is not proper in this district under Section 1391(e)(1)(B) because the events giving rise to this action did not occur within the Southern District.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits a suit against federal officers or agencies in the district where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Alhaddad v. United States Department of Homeland Security · filed 2025-12-23(e)(1)(C)

The action accordingly could have been brought in that district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C).

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a suit against a federal agency where the defendant resides, a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or the plaintiff resides.

McWilliams · filed 2026-02-02(e)(1)

Accordingly, venue in the Middle District of Florida is proper only if a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Mr. McWilliams’s claims occurred within this district. Because the amended complaint does not allege facts sufficient to permit the court to determine whether venue is proper, Mr. McWilliams must include additional factual information addressing venue in his amended pleading.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits a civil action against a federal agency or officer in the district where the plaintiff resides.

Joslin v. U.S. Department of the Interior · filed 2026-03-11(e)(1)

Here, all three venue hooks appear to be satisfied. At a minimum, there is no dispute that Dr. Joslin resides in the Eastern District of California.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in an action against a federal officer or agency where the defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Pedro Felipe Zerpa Duran v. Edlow · filed 2026-03-31(e)(1)

In civil actions against a U.S. agency or the officer of such an agency, venue is generally proper in three places: the “judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) 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 (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). The District of Vermont satisfies none of these prongs.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in an action against a federal agency or officer where the defendant resides, substantial events or omissions occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Jhon Alexander Castrellon Arias v. Edlow · filed 2026-03-31(e)(1)

In civil actions against a U.S. agency or the officer of such an agency, venue is generally proper in three places: the “judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) 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 (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). The District of Vermont satisfies none of these prongs.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits venue in a civil action against a federal agency officer where the defendant resides, substantial events or omissions occurred, or the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Veeramaneni · filed 2026-03-31(e)(1)

In civil actions against a U.S. agency or the officer of such an agency, venue is generally proper in three places: the “judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) 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 (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). The District of Vermont satisfies none of these prongs.

Section 1391(e)(1)(C) permits a suit against a federal officer or agency in the district where the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved.

Mahmoud v. United States Department of Homeland Security · filed 2026-05-21(e)(1)(C)

Venue is proper in suits against officers or agencies of the United States “in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) 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 (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). This suit could have been brought in the Northern District of Mississippi because Plaintiffs reside in Olive Branch, Mississippi, which is in DeSoto County, and the case does not involve real property.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits an action against federal officers or agencies to be brought where the plaintiff resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Gummaraju v. Noem · filed 2026-06-15(e)(1)

A civil action against an officer or employee of the United States or an agency of the United States may be brought “in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, . . . or (C) the plaintiff resides[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). Here, Mr. Gummaraju’s residence in the Eastern District of Michigan and the physical processing of his visa petition in the District of Nebraska mean that this action could have been brought in either of those districts.

Section 1391(e)(1) permits an official-capacity suit against federal employees in a district where the plaintiffs reside if no real property is involved, or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

Fhazz LLC v. Alfonso-Royals · filed 2026-06-26(e)(1)

Because the plaintiffs bring suit against federal employees acting in their official capacities, venue is proper in any district where “a defendant in the action resides”; “a substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred”; or where the plaintiffs reside if no real property is involved. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). Venue would therefore be proper in the Western District of North Carolina because the plaintiffs reside in that district.

A corporate defendant resides in a district for venue purposes if it is subject to personal jurisdiction there.

MCGARVEY v. GREAT WOLF LODGE · filed 2025-01-10(b)(1)

As discussed above, Plaintiffs have not established that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants and thus that Defendants “reside” in New Jersey for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Therefore, venue is improper in New Jersey pursuant to subsection (1).

Section 1391 permits a suit to be brought in a district where the defendant has its principal place of business.

Jones v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C. · filed 2020-06-29

First, the Court finds Plaintiff could have brought this litigation in that judicial district because Defendant’s principal place of business is in Norfolk, Virginia. ECF No. 53-1 at 2; 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits venue in the district where the defendant resides, and subsection (c) treats a defendant entity as residing where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the action.

TU v. C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC. · filed 2020-06-29(b)(1), (c)

Aside from the parties’ agreement under the forum-selection clause to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, venue is also proper in that District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the statute governing venue in the United States District Court. ... C.H. Robinson was, therefore, subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Minnesota at the time Mr. Tu filed this action and, consequently, resided in that District for venue purposes.

Section 1391(b)(1) permits a civil action in the district where the sole defendant resides.

Esquer v. StockX, LLC CASE CLOSED - ALL ENTRIES MUST BE MADE IN 19-12441. · filed 2020-06-30(b)(1)

As to the third element, venue would be proper in the Eastern District of Michigan. The venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, provides that a civil action may be brought in a “judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located.” The sole defendant in this case, StockX, LLC, is a resident of Detroit, which lies within the Eastern District of Michigan. Rollins Decl. ¶ 11.

Section 1391(b)(1) does not establish venue in a district where the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the corporate defendant.

ESTATE OF CONNOR GOLEMBIEWSKI v. TUTHILL CORPORATION · filed 2020-06-30(b)(1)

Because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant, venue is improper under § 1391(b)(1).

Section 1391(a)(1) permits venue where any defendant resides, and subsection (c) treats a corporation as residing in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction when the action begins.

Kehr Ex Rel. Kehr v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA · filed 2008-12-05(a)(1), (c)

However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1) an action may be properly brought in any judicial district “where any defendant resides.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1) (West 2008). Under Section 1391(c) “For purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) (West 2008). Yamaha cannot, and indeed does not, dispute that it is a subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, as it is a corporation that transacts business in this district. Thus, venue is not improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Section 1391(c) deems a corporate defendant to reside in any judicial district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction when the action begins.

Moyer v. Bank of America, N.A. (In Re Rosenberger) · filed 2008-12-10(c)

As a corporation which regularly conducts business throughout western Michigan, the Bank is unquestionably subject to personal jurisdiction in this district. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), it also “resides” in this district for purposes of venue. Since it “resides” in this district, independent venue exists in this district, even assuming that 28 U.S.C. § 1409(b) applies.

Section 1391(c) treats a corporation as residing in any judicial district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction when the action begins.

Cooper v. Farmers New Century Insurance · filed 2008-12-29(c)

Defendant, however, fails to acknowledge that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), a corporation — such as Defendant — is, for purposes of venue, “deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.” ... The Court therefore concludes that there is no basis on the record before it to find that the Defendant corporation does not “reside” in the District of Columbia, such that venue in this Court is improper.

Section 1391(c) deems a corporation to reside in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Capitol Records, LLC v. VideoEgg, Inc. · filed 2009-03-09(c)

A corporation is deemed to reside in any jurisdiction in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), and Defendants are clearly subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California. Accordingly this action could have been brought in the proposed transferee forum.

For a nondiversity action, § 1391(b) permits venue in a district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in the same state, and § 1391(c) treats a corporation as residing where it is subject to personal jurisdiction when the action begins.

Eres N v. v. Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. · filed 2009-03-16(b), (c)

“A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship” can be brought in “a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). For the purposes of the venue statute, a defendant corporation resides in a judicial district where “it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). ... CARCO apparently has an office in the Southern District of Texas, which means that all four Defendants would have been subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas at the time the suit was filed, and venue in the Southern District of Texas, where CITGO resides, would be appropriate.

Section 1391(c) treats a corporation as residing in a district of a multidistrict state when its contacts there would support personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate state.

Porche v. Pilot & Associates, Inc. · filed 2009-03-17(c)

In a multi-district state such as California, a corporation is deemed to reside in any district in that state within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate state.

A corporate defendant subject to personal jurisdiction in a district resides there for purposes of venue under § 1391(c).

Gueorguiev v. Max Rave, LLC · filed 2007-11-30(b)(1), (c)

Here, defendant submits it is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California and has consented to jurisdiction in the Hile case. Therefore under § 1391(c) defendant “resides” there for purposes of § 1391(b)(1). Accordingly, for purposes of this motion I find venue is proper in the Northern District of California and must address the issues of convenience and the interests of justice.

Section 1391(b) and (c) permit venue where the defendants reside in the same state; a corporation's consent to personal jurisdiction can establish its residence in a district.

Amini Innovation Corp. v. JS IMPORTS INC. · filed 2007-05-22(b), (c)

As noted, DFW has consented to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District of New York, making venue proper under § 1391(b) and (c).

Section 1391(c) treats a corporate defendant as residing, for venue purposes, in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction when the action begins.

Auburn Manufacturing, Inc. v. Steiner Industries · filed 2007-06-28(c)

With regard to corporations, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) further provides that, “[f|or purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.” Since the Court has personal jurisdiction over both remaining Defendants Grainger and Lab Safety, venue is also proper in this District.

Section 1391 treats a corporation as residing in a district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction, permitting venue there under the defendant residence rule.

Zimmer Enterprises, Inc. v. Atlandia Imports, Inc. · filed 2007-03-13(b)(1), (c)

Atlandia, a corporation, is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District of Ohio both because it conducts business and because it benefits from business transactions conducted within the state of Ohio. Doc. 12 ¶ 4. Since Atlandia is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District of Ohio, venue is proper here and Atlandia’s motion to dismiss for improper venue is denied.