Venue is governed by 28 USC 1391; venue is proper for FQJ and diversity jurisdiction cases (can be more than one place) in…
For individuals (1391(a) and (b))…
A judicial district where any D resides (if all Ds reside in the same state),
A judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is subject of the action is situated, or
(FALLBACK PROVISION) A judicial district in which any D is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
For corporations (1391(c))…
Any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.
For states with more than one judicial district, any district in that state where its contacts with that district would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction (or most significant contacts) if it were a separate state.
Transfer of venue is appropriate under 1404(a) only to a district where the action could have been brought originally. (Hoffman)
Gilbert established that forum non conveniens is a judicial common law procedure that allows courts to dismiss a complaint if there is a more proper venue elsewhere, usually foreign (Piper)
Private interest factors to consider in FNC motion…
Location of the events giving rise to the case
Ability to implead other parties in the court
Ability to take a view of premises involved in the dispute
Location of relevant witnesses and documentary evidence
Public interest factors to consider in FNC motion…
Whether the dispute involves local people or events
Whether it is likely to be decided under local law (if foreign law, FNC is almost always appropriate, Piper)
**Full Venue**
Federal Venue Analysis
Federal Diversity Cases
28 USC 1391(a) governs venue in diversity cases. Except as otherwise provided by law, venue is only proper in…
A judicial district where any D resides (if all Ds reside in the same state),
A judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is subject of the action is situated, or
(FALLBACK PROVISION) A judicial district in which any D is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
If Ds reside in different districts but all within the same state, venue is proper in any district in which one D resides in that state.
Subsection (3) is a fallback provision that is only available in unusual circumstances when there is no district anywhere in the US where venue would be proper under (1) or (2).
"Except as otherwise provided by law" means that 1391 will apply unless there is a special venue statute for the type of claim the P brings. For example, tort claims against the US must be brought in the district where the P resides or where the act or omission complained of occurred.
Venue is proper under (2) for any district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim took place, even if substantial events also took place in other districts. We don't have to choose which events are most substantial.
Federal Question/"Arising Under" Cases
28 USC 1391(b) governs venue in federal suits not based on diversity jurisdiction. 1391(a) and 1391(b) are the same except for subsection (3), which states that venue is proper where any D "may be found." Again, subsection (3) only applies if (1) and (2) cannot.
Residence Analysis for Corporations
1391(c) provides residence guidance for corporations
1391(a) and 1391(b) apply equally with individuals and corporations. Thus, the only outstanding issue is residence.
1391(c) provides…
D corporations shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.
In a state with more than one judicial district and in which a corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction the time an action is commenced, the corporation is deemed to reside in any district in that state where its contacts with that district would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if it were a separate state. If there is no such district, the corporation is deemed to reside in the district where is has the most significant contacts.
Most courts hold that a corporation is subject to general in personam jurisdiction in both the state of its principal place of business and the state of its incorporation. Corporations can be residents of multiple states. Thus, venue is proper in these locations.
However, be careful in multi-district states; personal jurisdiction over a D is state-wide while venue is only district-wide.
Forum Non Conveniens and Transfer
Forum non conveniens through Gilbert v. Gulf Oil
SCOTUS held that a federal district court could dismiss for forum non conveniens on the grounds that even though it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, practical factors suggest that it should be litigated somewhere else.
Forum Non Conveniens factors…
Private interest factors
Location of the events giving rise to the case
Ability to implead other parties in the court
Ability to take a view of premises involved in the dispute
Location of relevant witnesses and documentary evidence
Public interest factors
Whether the dispute involves local people or events
Whether it is likely to be decided under local law
The federal transfer-of-venue statute, 28 USC 1404(a), was enacted as a response to Gilbert.
A judge may transfer a case filed in their court to the more appropriate federal district instead of dismissing for forum non conveniens.
The standard for transfer is broad ("for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice"), but the factors of Gulf Oil govern transfer decisions as well.
From Hoffman, a case can only be transferred under 1404(a) to a district where it could have been filed originally (personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue).
If the proper forum under 1404(a) is another country, then the transfer statute does not apply, and the suit should be dismissed for forum non conveniens. (This is also true of state claims that are filed in the wrong state court. State courts cannot transfer claims to other states' courts.)
In general, deference is given to the P's choice of venue.
