Also known as: improper venues · wrong venue · venue defect
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A defense asserting that the judicial district selected for the action fails to satisfy the statutory requirements for venue. The defense is raised by a timely motion under the applicable rules of procedure and results in dismissal or transfer when the chosen forum lacks a sufficient connection to the parties or the events giving rise to the claim.
Ironwood Capital, headquartered in State C, contracted with Imran Iyer, a resident of State N, for data migration services involving servers in States N and C. Imran filed suit in the District of State T after some data incidentally passed through a small facility there. Ironwood moved under Rule 12(b)(3) before answering, and the court dismissed because no substantial part of the events occurred in State T.
Ismael Ibrahim sued Ironclad Industries in federal court over a contract formed entirely in State M. After the court dismissed for improper venue, Ismael refiled the identical claim in a proper district. The second court refused to treat the first dismissal as an adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ivy Ibarra filed suit against Innovate Pharmaceuticals in the wrong district and then failed to prosecute. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 41(b). The court dismissed without prejudice, expressly noting that the order did not operate as an adjudication on the merits because it rested on improper venue.
Ian Iverson was indicted in one district for offenses that occurred entirely in another district. The court dismissed two counts for improper venue and transferred the remaining charges to the district where the acts took place.
Isabelle Inman sued a federal official in a district lacking proper venue. The court noted that a ruling on improper venue, like a ruling on qualified immunity, can be outcome-determinative yet remains distinct from a decision on the merits of the underlying claim.
Imani Idowu purchased a cruise ticket containing a clause designating the Southern District of New York as the exclusive venue. After injury occurred at sea, she sued in the Eastern District of Louisiana. The court granted the motion to dismiss for improper venue and enforced the contractual forum selection.
A defendant must raise improper venue in the first Rule 12 motion or in the answer, whichever comes first. Failure to do so waives the defense under Rule 12(h)(1).
Supporting sources
No. Rule 41(b) expressly excepts dismissals for improper venue from the general rule that involuntary dismissals are on the merits. Jurisdictions may differ on preclusive effect, but the federal rule itself does not treat such a dismissal as an adjudication on the merits.
Supporting sources
The court may dismiss the action or, in the interest of justice, transfer it to a district where venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The plaintiff cannot proceed in the wrong district merely because personal jurisdiction exists.
Supporting sources
…under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for failure to join a party under Rule 19, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.” Since the dismissal here did not “otherwise specif[y]” (indeed, it specifically stated that it…