Charger wrote:brotherdarkness wrote:Rudolph wrote:I thought I had this down pat, but now I'm not sure that I understand where venue is proper. I understand the two part test: venue is proper i) where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim took place; and ii) the district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the state where that district is located.
The second prong is confusing to me. If all defendants don't reside in the same state, then do we just ignore prong #2? And does "reside" mean "domicile"? I feel like sometimes we're supposed to consider personal jdx, but sometimes we dont..? (See Q54 MBE Refresher) Can someone clarify?
Venue is a three-part test.
First, are all Ds residents of the same state? If so, any district where one of those Ds is residing is proper.
If not, second step. Where did the issue giving rise to the suit occur? Venue is proper in that district.
And if you can't lay venue in either, then venue is proper wherever any D is subject to PJ.
As far as reside and venue, it's different than PJ. For venue, a defendant resides wherever it is subject to PJ. For PJ, a defendant resides in only two places (place of incorporation and nerve center)
Question on this. I thought it was more of a two part test. First, if all D's reside in the same state then any district where one of those D resides OR where the issue giving rise to the suit occurred. P has the choice between these two. Then, if neither, then wherever D is subject to PJ.
Can someone clear this up for me?
Well, you could think of it as a two-part test: (1) if all Ds reside in same state, then any district where one of the Ds resides; or (2) in the district where a substantial part of the injury/transaction/whatever occurred.
But if you fail both parts of the test, then you lay venue wherever any D is subject to PJ. So I say three-part so that I remember the whole thing.