Also known as: substantial part of events or omissions · substantial part of the events · substantial part of the omissions · venue substantial part test · 28 USC 1391 substantial part
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A statutory criterion for proper venue that permits a civil action to be brought 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.
Sebastian Santos applied online for an apartment in the Eastern District. The property owner used centralized screening software developed in the Western District and denied the application. Santos sued for housing discrimination. Venue is proper in the Eastern District because the denial that forms the basis of the claim occurred there even though the screening policies originated elsewhere.
Simon Stern's startup in State N contracted with Sentinel Security in State C to migrate data centers. Some data routed through a small facility in State T during the failed migration that caused data loss. Stern sued in State T. Venue is improper there because the routing was incidental and the contract negotiations and primary servers were located in States N and C.
In October 2001, Robert Nicastro suffered a serious hand injury while operating a metal-shearing machine at his workplace in Saddle Brook, New Jersey, and the machine in question was a McIntyre Model 640 Shear manufactured in England by J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd., which is incorporated and operates in Nottingham, England. Nicastro's employer, Curcio Scrap Metal, had purchased the machine from McIntyre Machinery America, Ltd., an independent Ohio-based distributor that sold J. McIntyre products throughout the United States, and J. McIntyre had no office, employees, property, or tax obligations in New Jersey while also refraining from advertising or shipping products directly to the state. J. McIntyre sold machines to the Ohio distributor, which then resold them to U.S. customers including the single machine that reached New Jersey, and the company held both United States and European patents on its recycling technology. J. McIntyre's representatives attended scrap recycling industry trade shows in cities such as Chicago, Las Vegas, New Orleans, Orlando, San Diego, and San Francisco, yet the conventions never took place in New Jersey while the distributor attended shows that included some in New Jersey. Nicastro filed a products-liability action against J. McIntyre in New Jersey state court, and the trial court granted J. McIntyre's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction after finding that the defendant had no contacts with New Jersey apart from the machine ending up there. The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal, and the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the reversal while the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the New Jersey Supreme Court's jurisdictional determination.
View caseSelena Singh's production company in State C licensed content to Sterling Dynamics in State D. The series was filmed entirely in State C. Sterling's accounting office in State A generated royalty statements that allegedly underreported views. Singh sued in State A. Venue is proper there because the statements and records central to the underreporting claim were prepared and issued from that office.
Zippo Manufacturing Company is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Bradford, Pennsylvania, where it manufactures Zippo tobacco lighters. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Sunnyvale, California. Dot Com operates an Internet website and news service and holds the domain names zippo.com, zippo.net, and zipponews.com. Dot Com's website provides information about the company, advertisements, and an online application for its Internet news service. The service offers three membership levels, with paid subscribers receiving passwords to access newsgroup messages stored on servers in California after submitting personal information and paying by credit card. Approximately 3,000 of Dot Com's 140,000 paying subscribers reside in Pennsylvania. Dot Com has also entered into agreements with seven Internet access providers in Pennsylvania, two of which are in the Western District, allowing their subscribers to access the news service. These contacts occurred through the Internet, as Dot Com maintains no offices, employees, or agents in Pennsylvania. Manufacturing filed a five-count complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging trademark dilution, infringement, and false designation under federal law, as well as state law claims, based on Dot Com's use of the word "Zippo" in its domain names, website, and newsgroup message headers. Dot Com moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case.
View caseNo. Venue turns on where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. The place where discriminatory policies originated is not decisive when the denial of housing that forms the basis of the claim took place in another district.
Supporting sources
No. Incidental routing through a small facility during a multi-state migration does not constitute a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim when the contract was negotiated and primarily performed elsewhere.
Supporting sources
Yes. When royalty statements and payments were prepared and issued from an accounting office in the chosen district and the damages calculation depends on records maintained exclusively there, those functions can constitute a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.
Supporting sources