Hahalollawl wrote: TheWalrus wrote:
Hahalollawl wrote:This might be a dumb question, but for the purpose of venue, apparently an entity that is plaintiff resides in the state where it's principal place of business is located (as opposed to where there is PJ for defendant), but why does that matter? When are you supposed to be looking at the plaintiff's residence to determine venue?
Tbh, I don't really understand your first bit, but plaintiffs location is important for diversity jurisdiction.
Just for venue specifically, not diversity jurisdiction. Don't ask me why, but venue distinguishes between "entities" (PJ) and "individuals" (domicile) for the purpose of residence, which is one of three ways to have the proper venue. What I don't get is why anyone would ever care where a PLAINTIFF's residence is, when I only ever seem to be looking at the Defendant's residence for venue.
Also, if I'm getting to deep into the weeds here, someone please tell me and I'll just back out.
A civil action 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, or an agency of the United States, or the United States, may, except as otherwise provided by law, 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.
Additional persons may be joined as parties to any such action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with such other venue requirements as would be applicable if the United States or one of its officers, employees, or agencies were not a party.
That's the only time I can think of it being relevant. But there might be some other rule where it applies that I can't recall.