Also known as: 12(b)(3) · FRCP 12(b)(3) · Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) · improper venue · venue motion
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural mechanism by which a defendant challenges the propriety of the judicial district in which the plaintiff has filed suit. The motion asserts that venue does not lie under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because no defendant resides in the district, no substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred there, and no defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction there under the fallback provision.
Bay Logic sued Red Networks in the District of State T after a failed data migration. Red Networks filed a pre-answer motion asserting that the contract negotiations and primary server locations were in States N and C, with only incidental routing through State T. The court examined whether any substantial part of the events occurred in the chosen district and dismissed the action.
After a prior action was dismissed for improper venue, the plaintiff refiled the same claim in a new district. The defendant argued that the earlier dismissal should bar the second suit. The court determined that a venue dismissal does not automatically carry claim-preclusive effect and allowed the new action to proceed.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ruby Rivera filed suit in an improper district and then failed to respond to court orders. The defendant moved under Rule 12(b)(3) and also sought dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court dismissed the action, noting that the venue defect alone would have warranted dismissal without prejudice.
Paula Smith sued Commodore Cruise Line in Louisiana after an injury at sea. Commodore moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3) based on a forum-selection clause designating New York. The court evaluated whether the clause rendered the chosen venue improper and considered transfer as an alternative.
Stewart Organization sued Ricoh in Alabama despite a clause selecting New York. Ricoh moved under Rule 12(b)(3) to dismiss or transfer. The court treated the clause as a factor in the venue analysis and decided whether dismissal or transfer best served the interests of justice.
A plaintiff sued a government official in a district lacking proper venue. The defendant raised both qualified immunity and improper venue. The court addressed the venue motion first under Rule 12(b)(3) before reaching the immunity question to avoid unnecessary merits adjudication.
A defendant must include the defense in the first pre-answer motion or in the answer if no such motion is made. Omitting it from an initial Rule 12 motion waives the defense under Rule 12(g) and (h).
Supporting sources
No. A dismissal for improper venue is expressly excluded from the default rule that other dismissals are on the merits. Jurisdictions may treat such dismissals as without prejudice for preclusion purposes.
Supporting sources
The plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that venue is proper in the chosen district. The burden remains on the plaintiff to establish that a substantial part of the events occurred there or that another statutory basis applies.
Supporting sources
Yes. Courts routinely resolve venue challenges before reaching the sufficiency of the complaint because venue is a threshold issue that determines whether the court should exercise its power over the case at all.
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…