Also known as: substantial part of events or omissions · Brussels I jurisdiction · place of harmful event
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory ground for proper venue in a federal civil action. It permits suit in any judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or where a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Santiago Sanchez hired Sierra Solutions to transport high-value equipment from his facility in the Northern District. The cargo vanished while the truck passed through the Southern District. Sanchez sued both the broker and carrier in the Southern District. The disappearance of the shipment during transit through that district supplies the required substantial connection to the claim.
Sydney Santos purchased a vehicle whose braking system failed while she drove through the Central District, causing a serious accident. Santos sued the manufacturer and parts supplier in the Central District. The malfunction, crash, and resulting injuries all occurred in that district and therefore constitute a substantial part of the events giving rise to the products-liability claim.
Sebastian Santos contracted with Stonehaven Properties for migration of data servers located primarily in two other states. A small portion of the data passed through a facility in the Western District during the failed migration. Santos sued in the Western District. The incidental routing of data through that single facility does not amount to a substantial part of the events giving rise to the breach claim.
No. The statute requires only that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the district. Multiple districts may qualify, and the test is satisfied even when the chosen district contains less than a majority of the operative facts.
Supporting sources
Yes. In a products-liability action the malfunction, crash, and resulting injury constitute core events giving rise to the claim. Those events satisfy the substantial-part requirement when they occur in the forum district, regardless of where design or assembly took place.
…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 Court clarified in…
…resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a
Supporting sources
Yes. When the property that is the subject of the action is situated in the district and the fire that triggered the coverage dispute occurred there, those facts supply a substantial connection to the claim even if underwriting decisions were made elsewhere.
Supporting sources
No. When the only connection to the district is incidental routing of a minor portion of data during a multi-state migration that was negotiated and primarily performed elsewhere, that connection is too tangential to constitute a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim.
Supporting sources