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 · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see 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.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Selena 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.
No. 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
…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 sovereignty. As the…