Venue Flashcards
Venue generally: substantial part of the events
Venue is proper where a substantial part of the events or omissions on which the claim is based occurred in the district.
There may be more than one judicial district that satisfies this test. The test does not require that the events or omissions that occur in a judicial district predominate over those that occur in another judicial district.
Venue generally: defendants in the same state
Venue is proper in a district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state in which the district is located.
Non-U.S. residents
A defendant who is not a resident of the United States may be sued in any judicial district—i.e., the defendant is deemed to be a resident of any judicial district.
Venue generally: property
Venue is proper if at least a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in the judicial district in which venue is proposed.
Neither party need reside in the forum state.
Venue generally: “fall back” venue provision
It applies when there otherwise is no judicial district where the action could be brought.
If so, venue lies if the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum district.
Federal Torts Claims Act
In an action filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, venue is proper either in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or in the judicial district where the act or omission occurred.
Actions against federal officers
An action against a federal officer or employee acting in an official capacity or under color of legal authority may be brought in the judicial district in which the plaintiff resides.
Removal from state court
Under Section 1441(a) of the removal statute, an action may be removed to the federal court in the district where the state action is pending.
That removal statute determines venue, regardless of whether venue would have been proper under the venue statute (Section 1391) if plaintiff had originally brought the action in that federal district court.
Forum non conveniens
The common-law forum non conveniens doctrine allows a court to dismiss an action—even if personal jurisdiction and venue are otherwise proper—if the court finds:
- that the forum would be too inconvenient for parties and witnesses; and
- that another, more convenient, venue is available.
To convince a court to invoke this doctrine, the defendant ordinarily bears a heavy burden to displace the plaintiff’s chosen forum.
In light of the availability of a statutory based transfer of the action to another federal court, a federal court is unlikely to dismiss the action in reliance on the forum non conveniens doctrine.
Forum selection clause
A valid forum selection clause does not render venue improper in other districts.
Diversity jurisdiction
The issue of proper venue in a federal diversity jurisdiction case is a procedural issue that is governed by federal law, not state law.
