Top Law Schools

Quick question,

Imagine we have an enormous suit, with many different claims and defendants. Do we just ask whether the entire suit has proper venue, or do we go through individually all of the defendants and determine if venue is proper for them?

Just read through section 1391.
(a) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,
(2) 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 the subject of the action is situated, or
(3) a judicial district in which any defendant 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.

(b) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,
(2) 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 the subject of the action is situated, or
(3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.

So, if we have 1332 diversity jurisdiction, then we get venue in 1) a district where ANY defendant resides. We also get venue if 2) a substantial amount of the case happened there -- regardless of where other defendants are located. Finally, if we cant get venue from the first two, 3) we can get it in any district where one defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

One the other hand, if we have 1331 federal question jurisdiction (or supplemental jurisdiciton over a defendant based on federal question jurisdiction) then the first two rules are exactly the same, but we change the third possibility to a district where any defendant may be found. This is a really ambiguous one, but like a(3), you only look to it if you can't get venue using the first two methods.

daesonesb wrote:Just read through section 1391.
(a) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,
(2) 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 the subject of the action is situated, or
(3) a judicial district in which any defendant 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.

(b) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,
(2) 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 the subject of the action is situated, or
(3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.

So, if we have 1332 diversity jurisdiction, then we get venue in 1) a district where ANY defendant resides. We also get venue if 2) a substantial amount of the case happened there -- regardless of where other defendants are located. Finally, if we cant get venue from the first two, 3) we can get it in any district where one defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

One the other hand, if we have 1331 federal question jurisdiction (or supplemental jurisdiciton over a defendant based on federal question jurisdiction) then the first two rules are exactly the same, but we change the third possibility to a district where any defendant may be found. This is a really ambiguous one, but like a(3), you only look to it if you can't get venue using the first two methods.

Thanks,

Ok, after reading through a bit more carefully, we ask if venue for the SUIT is proper, based on 1361. We don't have to go through and ask if venue is proper for each individual defendant. I just ask this because I got done doing a practice test and the model answer went through each defendant if venue was proper under 1391.

I've been accustomed to just looking at where the suit was filed and determining if the entire action was filed with proper venue.

BCLS wrote:
Thanks,

Ok, after reading through a bit more carefully, we ask if venue for the SUIT is proper, based on 1361. We don't have to go through and ask if venue is proper for each individual defendant. I just ask this because I got done doing a practice test and the model answer went through each defendant if venue was proper under 1391.

I've been accustomed to just looking at where the suit was filed and determining if the entire action was filed with proper venue.

was the model answer assuming a suit between P v. D1, P v. D2, P v. D3, etc... in that case the suit would be different with each defendant, if the defendants all lived in different states.

If it was P v. D1, D2, & D3, then that would be a weird way to answer a Venue question.

uwb09 wrote:

BCLS wrote:
Thanks,

Ok, after reading through a bit more carefully, we ask if venue for the SUIT is proper, based on 1361. We don't have to go through and ask if venue is proper for each individual defendant. I just ask this because I got done doing a practice test and the model answer went through each defendant if venue was proper under 1391.

I've been accustomed to just looking at where the suit was filed and determining if the entire action was filed with proper venue.

was the model answer assuming a suit between P v. D1, P v. D2, P v. D3, etc... in that case the suit would be different with each defendant, if the defendants all lived in different states.

If it was P v. D1, D2, & D3, then that would be a weird way to answer a Venue question.

Ok I think I figured this out:

The suit was modeled like this:

P v. D1, D2, D3 for wrongful death state claim. There was also an additional federal question claim against D1. So both the federal claim and the state claim each need to be checked for proper venue right?

My original confusion was that I didn't understand EACH CLAIM needs proper venue, although the defendants remain constant.

Does this sound right?

Thanks!

Bump: Does anyone know if each claim needs venue?

BCLS wrote:

daesonesb wrote:Just read through section 1391.
(a) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,
(2) 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 the subject of the action is situated, or
(3) a judicial district in which any defendant 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.

(b) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State,
(2) 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 the subject of the action is situated, or
(3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.

So, if we have 1332 diversity jurisdiction, then we get venue in 1) a district where ANY defendant resides. We also get venue if 2) a substantial amount of the case happened there -- regardless of where other defendants are located. Finally, if we cant get venue from the first two, 3) we can get it in any district where one defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

One the other hand, if we have 1331 federal question jurisdiction (or supplemental jurisdiciton over a defendant based on federal question jurisdiction) then the first two rules are exactly the same, but we change the third possibility to a district where any defendant may be found. This is a really ambiguous one, but like a(3), you only look to it if you can't get venue using the first two methods.

Thanks,

Ok, after reading through a bit more carefully, we ask if venue for the SUIT is proper, based on 1361. We don't have to go through and ask if venue is proper for each individual defendant. I just ask this because I got done doing a practice test and the model answer went through each defendant if venue was proper under 1391.

I've been accustomed to just looking at where the suit was filed and determining if the entire action was filed with proper venue.

I just wanna make sure I emphasize this, but the "where any defendant resides" part of venue only works when all defendants reside in the same state. Otherwise, you would need to look at where the case happened, or the two different catchall provisions (depending on if we are in diversity or in federal Q).