Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=172829
Nope, it's: 1391(a)(1) where D resides, if all Ds reside in the same state. All the Ds would have to reside in the same state.RR320 wrote:I'm starting to confuse myself. In regards to 1391(a), it says any district where any D resides if all Ds reside in the same state. What if there are 3 defendants from 3 diff states ( FL, CA, NY)....you could bring suit in any of those states in the district where one of those defendants resides, right? or am I just looking at this wrong?
When there is no proper venue according to 1391(a)(1), move on to 1391(a)(2): venue is proper where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred (or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated).RR320 wrote:but what happens when you have defendants from different states?
Np dude, best of luck, i'm right there with you. Just as a helpful tip, remember that the fallback provision in 1391(c) is only used where there is NO proper venue under 1391(a) and 1391(b). So if you get asked to analyzed whether venue is proper in a specific district, don't get tripped up by that.RR320 wrote:thanks... i'm losing it.
If all 3 are from the same state, but in different districts you may file in an district within that state where a Defendant resides. If this were PA for instance, D1 is in Eastern District in Philly, D2 & D3 live in Pittsburgh in the Western District, you may file in both Eastern or Western districts, but not the Central District of PA.ph14 wrote:Nope, it's: 1391(a)(1) where D resides, if all Ds reside in the same state. All the Ds would have to reside in the same state.RR320 wrote:I'm starting to confuse myself. In regards to 1391(a), it says any district where any D resides if all Ds reside in the same state. What if there are 3 defendants from 3 diff states ( FL, CA, NY)....you could bring suit in any of those states in the district where one of those defendants resides, right? or am I just looking at this wrong?
So building off that, if multiple Ds all reside in the same state, but in different judicial districts, would venue be proper in any of the judicial districts any D resides in? I believe so, but I want to make sure.
Great, thank you!crossarmant wrote:If all 3 are from the same state, but in different districts you may file in an district within that state where a Defendant resides. If this were PA for instance, D1 is in Eastern District in Philly, D2 & D3 live in Pittsburgh in the Western District, you may file in both Eastern or Western districts, but not the Central District of PA.ph14 wrote:Nope, it's: 1391(a)(1) where D resides, if all Ds reside in the same state. All the Ds would have to reside in the same state.RR320 wrote:I'm starting to confuse myself. In regards to 1391(a), it says any district where any D resides if all Ds reside in the same state. What if there are 3 defendants from 3 diff states ( FL, CA, NY)....you could bring suit in any of those states in the district where one of those defendants resides, right? or am I just looking at this wrong?
So building off that, if multiple Ds all reside in the same state, but in different judicial districts, would venue be proper in any of the judicial districts any D resides in? I believe so, but I want to make sure.
I think you meant 1391(a)(3), (b)(3) for the fall back provision. I would just add that because of 1391(a)(2) and (b)(2), there will always be a US district where venue lies, unless the events giving rise to the claim occurred outside the US.ph14 wrote:Np dude, best of luck, i'm right there with you. Just as a helpful tip, remember that the fallback provision in 1391(c) is only used where there is NO proper venue under 1391(a) and 1391(b). So if you get asked to analyzed whether venue is proper in a specific district, don't get tripped up by that.RR320 wrote:thanks... i'm losing it.
Unless there is a funky situation where one of the multi-state defendants is not subject to personal jurisdiction in the state housing the district where a substantial portion of events or omissions took place. This is improbable but not impossible.zeusmaxpower wrote:I think you meant 1391(a)(3), (b)(3) for the fall back provision. I would just add that because of 1391(a)(2) and (b)(2), there will always be a US district where venue lies, unless the events giving rise to the claim occurred outside the US.ph14 wrote:Np dude, best of luck, i'm right there with you. Just as a helpful tip, remember that the fallback provision in 1391(c) is only used where there is NO proper venue under 1391(a) and 1391(b). So if you get asked to analyzed whether venue is proper in a specific district, don't get tripped up by that.RR320 wrote:thanks... i'm losing it.
Good point..the fun never stops in civ pro does it?fish tacos wrote:Unless there is a funky situation where one of the multi-state defendants is not subject to personal jurisdiction in the state housing the district where a substantial portion of events or omissions took place. This is improbable but not impossible.zeusmaxpower wrote:I think you meant 1391(a)(3), (b)(3) for the fall back provision. I would just add that because of 1391(a)(2) and (b)(2), there will always be a US district where venue lies, unless the events giving rise to the claim occurred outside the US.ph14 wrote:Np dude, best of luck, i'm right there with you. Just as a helpful tip, remember that the fallback provision in 1391(c) is only used where there is NO proper venue under 1391(a) and 1391(b). So if you get asked to analyzed whether venue is proper in a specific district, don't get tripped up by that.RR320 wrote:thanks... i'm losing it.