VENUE
Answers to Problem C, page 114.
1. the places of proper venue (§ 1391a):
2. § 1391(a). Cannot sue in either of the defendant's states because they reside in different states. Therefore the only place left in which to file is there the claim occurred, which is the Central District of California.
3. § 12(b)(3) Can bring this up by motion: As long as defendant B interposes timely and sufficient objection to the venue, the Northern District Court of Illinois may dismiss or transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.
4. § 1391(c). Because a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, places of proper venue for defendant B are all districts and divisions in California, and in the districts in each of the 14 other states in which defendant B is deemed to have significant contacts.
5. considerations that may influence picking which venue to sue in:
6. § 1404(a). Defendant can file a motion for change of venue for transfer to another division in the same district. Or the court may for the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice, transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.
7. § 1391(b). Because action may be only brought in a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, the only option for suit is the Los Angeles Division of the Central District of California.
8. Because San Francisco, being P's place of residence, is a jurisdiction in which the suit "might have been brought" (§ 1404(a)), it can be a place of proper venue although it would not be allowed under § 1391(b) if that section were the only one to be considered.
Notes:
Venue is not jurisdiction, jurisdiction is not venue. If jurisdiction over person is proper, then more likely then not, venue is proper.