Key Venue Rules

Why This Matters

Venue rules determine where a federal civil case will be heard—and this isn't just a logistical detail. On the exam, you're being tested on your ability to distinguish venue from subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, apply the statutory framework of 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and analyze whether a chosen forum is proper or subject to challenge. Venue questions frequently appear in multiple-choice questions testing statutory interpretation and in FRQs asking you to evaluate a plaintiff's forum choice or argue for transfer.

Don't just memorize that venue can be based on residence or events—know why each basis exists (convenience, fairness, connection to the dispute) and how courts analyze competing venue options. The real exam skill is applying these rules to fact patterns involving corporate defendants, multi-party litigation, and strategic forum selection. Master the distinctions between proper venue, improper venue, and inconvenient venue, and you'll be ready for whatever the exam throws at you.

---

Establishing Proper Venue: The Statutory Framework

The general venue statute provides three independent bases for venue, any one of which makes a district proper. Think of these as alternative paths—a plaintiff only needs to satisfy one.

General Venue Statute (28 U.S.C. § 1391)

• Three statutory bases—venue is proper where (1) any defendant resides, (2) a substantial part of events occurred, or (3) any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction (fallback only)
• Applies to all civil actions—this statute governs both federal question and diversity cases, creating a unified framework
• Fallback provision is narrow—the personal jurisdiction basis under § 1391(b)(3) applies only when no other district satisfies (1) or (2)

Venue in Federal Question Cases

• Same statutory framework applies—federal question cases use § 1391 just like diversity cases; no special venue rules exist merely because federal law is involved
• Event location often controls—where the alleged violation of federal law occurred typically provides the strongest venue basis
• Strategic consideration—plaintiffs may prefer certain districts known for favorable precedent or faster dockets

Venue in Diversity Cases

• Identical analysis to federal question—despite different jurisdictional basis, venue determination follows the same § 1391 framework
• State law claims, federal venue rules—even though substantive state law applies, federal venue statutes govern where the case can be heard
• Multiple proper venues common—diversity cases often involve parties in different states, creating several proper venue options

---

Residence-Based Venue: Where Defendants "Reside"

The concept of residence varies dramatically between natural persons and entities. Courts look to domicile for individuals but apply a broader test for corporations.

Residence-Based Venue (Natural Persons)

• Domicile controls—an individual defendant "resides" in the district where they are domiciled, meaning their permanent home with intent to remain
• Single residence typically—unlike corporations, individuals generally have only one domicile for venue purposes
• Plaintiff's residence irrelevant—venue focuses on defendant residence; where the plaintiff lives doesn't establish venue under § 1391

Venue for Corporations

• Dual residency rule—corporations reside in any district where they are subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced
• Multiple districts possible—a corporation doing substantial business in many states may "reside" in numerous districts for venue purposes
• In multi-district states—corporate residence is limited to districts where contacts would support personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate state

Multiple Defendants and Venue

• Any defendant's residence works—venue is proper in any district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state
• Same-state requirement—the residence-based option under § 1391(b)(1) requires all defendants to reside in the same state
• Event-based venue often easier—when defendants are scattered across states, plaintiffs typically rely on event-based venue instead

---

Event-Based Venue: The "Substantial Part" Test

Event-based venue connects the case to a location with a meaningful relationship to the dispute. Courts require more than a tangential connection but don't require the "best" or "most significant" location.

Event-Based Venue

• "Substantial part" standard—venue is proper where a substantial part of events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; it need not be the most substantial
• Multiple districts may qualify—several districts can satisfy this test simultaneously; the statute doesn't require identifying the single best location
• Fact-intensive inquiry—courts examine where contracts were negotiated, signed, or breached; where injuries occurred; where relevant conduct took place

---

Challenging and Changing Venue

Even when venue is technically proper, mechanisms exist to move cases to more appropriate forums. These doctrines balance plaintiff's choice against convenience and fairness.

Transfer of Venue (28 U.S.C. § 1404)

• Convenience-based transfer—allows transfer to any district where the case could have been brought for convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice
• Original venue must be proper—§ 1404 applies when the original venue is proper but another district would be more convenient
• Plaintiff's choice gets deference—courts give weight to plaintiff's forum selection, but it can be overcome by showing significant inconvenience

Forum Non Conveniens

• Dismissal doctrine—unlike transfer, forum non conveniens results in dismissal so the case can be refiled in a more appropriate forum (typically foreign)
• Adequate alternative forum required—the doctrine applies only when another forum is available and can provide adequate relief
• Balancing test applies—courts weigh private factors (access to evidence, witness convenience) and public factors (court congestion, local interest)

---

Special Venue Rules

Certain categories of cases have venue rules that deviate from the general statute. Always check for special statutes before applying § 1391.

Special Venue Statutes

• Override general rules—statutes governing patent, copyright, and certain other claims provide specific venue provisions that supersede § 1391
• Patent venue narrowed—after TC Heartland (2017), patent cases against domestic corporations are limited to state of incorporation or where infringement occurred with a regular place of business
• Policy rationales vary—special venue rules often address concerns about forum shopping or concentrate expertise in particular courts

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. A plaintiff sues a corporation in the District of Delaware, where the corporation is incorporated, but all relevant events occurred in California and all witnesses are there. What procedural mechanism could the defendant use, and what must it show?

2. Compare residence-based venue for an individual defendant versus a corporate defendant. Why might a plaintiff prefer to rely on event-based venue when suing a corporation?

3. If defendants A and B reside in different states, can the plaintiff establish venue based on defendant residence under § 1391(b)(1)? What alternative basis should the plaintiff consider?

4. What distinguishes a § 1404 transfer from a forum non conveniens dismissal? In what circumstances would a court use each doctrine?

5. A contract was negotiated in District X, signed in District Y, and allegedly breached in District Z. Could venue be proper in all three districts under the event-based test? Explain the "substantial part" standard.