2.9 Venue

LibraryFederal Civil Practice in Virginia (Virginia CLE) (2018 Ed.)

2.9 VENUE

2.901 General Rules and Provisions. 28 U.S.C. § 1391 is the general venue statute. This statute was amended by the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011. 616 That Act adds a new section, 28 U.S.C. § 1390, that specifically defines the term "venue." Venue is distinct from subject matter jurisdiction.

[Page 156]

Subject matter jurisdiction restrictions differ from venue rules in that, unlike venue rules, they may not be waived by the parties.

For a fairly recent case emphasizing that a forum selection clause in an insurance contract cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a federal court, see DiPaolo v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 617

A. Unitary Approach to Venue. Before passage of the Act, the venue statute drew distinctions between diversity cases and federal question cases, with different provisions for each. After the Act, the new statute adopts a single, unitary approach to venue rules. The new statute now provides for venue based on residence of the defendants and where the events giving rise to the action took place:

A civil action may now be brought in (i) any judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located; (ii) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (iii) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought, as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) or (2), then in any judicial district in which the defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the action. 618

B. New "Residency" Provisions. The new statute provides that for all venue purposes:

1. A natural person, including an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, shall be deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled;
2. An entity with the capacity to sue or be sued in its common name under applicable law, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which that defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question, and, if a plaintiff, only in the judicial district in which it maintains its principal place of business; and

[Page 157]

3. A defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district, and the joinder of that defendant shall be disregarded in determining whether the action can be brought with respect to the other defendants. 619

C. Determination of the Residency of Corporations in States with Multiple Districts. In a state that has more than one judicial district, and in which a defendant that is a corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, the corporation will be deemed to reside in any district in that state within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate state. If there is no such district, the corporation will be deemed to reside in the district in which it has its most significant contacts. 620

A defendant corporation is deemed to "reside" in a judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. 621 Simply because a corporation is incorporated in a particular state (making the corporation subject to personal jurisdiction based on residence in every division within the commonwealth) is not enough because "residence," as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), makes no reference to the district in which the corporation is incorporated or licensed to do business. 622 Personal jurisdiction over a corporation is not proper in a state merely because the corporation is incorporated in that state, and courts must examine whether personal jurisdiction is proper in the judicial division selected based upon the corporation's contacts with that division. 623

Venue may be proper in more than one district under the general venue statute. 624

When a defendant timely objects to venue, "the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that venue is proper." 625 Unless the balance is strongly

[Page 158]

in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice forum is generally accorded great weight and should rarely be disturbed, especially where the forum chosen is the plaintiff's home state. 626

Local Civil Rules 3(A) and 3(B) describe the area and divisions of the Eastern District of Virginia. Local Civil Rule 3(C) governs the division in which suits are to be instituted. Local Rule 2(a) of the Western District of Virginia describes the divisions of the court. Local Rule 2(b) of the Western District of Virginia discusses proper venue in civil cases.

The Fourth Circuit has ruled that when a Las Vegas executive filed a 10-Q form via the SEC's EDGAR (Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval) system server in Alexandria, Virginia, venue for a criminal indictment under the federal securities laws could be laid in the Eastern District of Virginia, even though the executive argued that he could not have reasonably foreseen that he could be hauled into court in the Eastern District of Virginia when he transmitted the form in Nevada. 627 The executive was later convicted on all counts.

A case brought in an improper venue may be dismissed altogether under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) or, more usually, transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 628

The Western District of Virginia has addressed a recent Supreme Court of the United States holding in TC Heartland v. Kraft Food, where domestic corporations involved in patent infringement actions must be sued in the judicial district where the defendant resides or where the defendant committed the infringement and maintains an established place of business. 629 The Western District, however, did not apply the holding in Mya

[Page 159]

Saray, LLC v. Dabes, stating that the Supreme Court explicitly noted that the decision did not apply to foreign corporations. 630

2.902 Venue Transfer for Convenience: 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Forum Non Conveniens.

A. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) Convenience Transfer. Transfer of a case to a different venue may sometimes be appropriate, even if the original venue was proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) states that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought."

The decision to transfer a case lies within the sound discretion of the district court. 631 For an excellent recent case comprehensively analyzing all relevant factors in deciding to transfer a case from the Eastern District of Virginia to the District of Maryland, see Yancey v. International Fidelity Insurance Co. 632

Courts generally use a four-factor test to determine whether a transfer of venue is appropriate based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. 633 These factors are:

1. The plaintiff's choice of venue.
2. The convenience of the witnesses and access to sources of proof.
3. The convenience of the parties.
4. The interests of justice. 634

In order to decide if a transfer of venue is appropriate, the court must (i) determine whether the suit could have been brought in the venue to

[Page 160]

which transfer is sought, and (ii) whether the balance of convenience to the parties and considerations of the interests of justice justify transfer to another...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT