Also known as: substantial parts of the events · substantial portion of the events
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory basis for venue permitting suit in a judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or where a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.
Rita applied online for an apartment in the Eastern District. Republic Development and Delta Buildings denied her application using centralized screening policies developed in the Western District. The denial occurred at the Eastern District property. Venue is proper in the Eastern District because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the discrimination claim took place there.
Bay Logic contracted with Red Networks for data center migration involving servers in States N, C, and a small facility in State T. The contract was negotiated by email between executives in States N and C. Only incidental data routing occurred through the State T facility during the failed migration that caused data loss. Venue is not proper in State T because the routing supplied only a minimal connection rather than a substantial part of the events giving rise to the breach claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Southern Media licensed a series to Continental Live under an agreement negotiated in State B. All filming and production occurred in State C. Continental Live processed royalties and generated allegedly inaccurate statements at its accounting office in State A. Venue is proper in State A because the underreporting and resulting harm first materialized through the accounting functions performed there.
The test requires a real and meaningful connection between the district and the operative facts giving rise to the claim. Incidental or tangential contacts such as data routing through a minor facility do not qualify. Courts examine the nature and location of the alleged conduct including where performance occurred and where the harm materialized.
Supporting sources
No. Routine or incidental activity such as data routing or back-office processing does not constitute a substantial part of the events when the core conduct occurred elsewhere. The connection must be central to the claim rather than tangential.
Supporting sources
Yes. The statute permits venue in any district where a substantial part of the events occurred even if the majority of events took place elsewhere. Multiple districts may each contain a substantial portion of the operative facts.
Supporting sources
The two bases operate independently. Venue may be proper under the substantial-part prong even when no defendant resides in the district. Conversely a district may satisfy the residence prong when all defendants reside in the state and at least one resides in the chosen district regardless of where the events occurred.
Supporting sources
…suits, whether resting on diversity or federal-question jurisdiction, venue is proper in the judicial district “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”). Third, the constitutional limits on a state court’s adjudicatory authority derive from considerations of due process, not state…