Notes and Problems



a.      Venue will lie in the Southern District of New York because that’s where the defendant lives.

b.     I would want to know where the events leading to the suit occurred.  I would also want to know where else the defendant could be subject to personal jurisdiction.

2.     Here we would have to rely on finding a forum where both defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction.  The Southern District of New York should be okay due to the bubble rule.

3.     So you can sue them in the district where they are headquartered or incorporated.


a.      The venue could be either the Eastern District of California or Nevada.

b.     The rule is that an alien may be sued in any district.  Probably the Eastern District of California would be the easiest.

c.     OK!

d.     Personal jurisdiction over C will only lie in forums where C established minimum contacts, which would probably limit jurisdiction to Nevada.

5.     It appears that the difference between § 1391(a)(3) and § 1391(b)(3) is no difference at all under current case law.



Dee-K Enterprises, Inc. v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd.

982 F. Supp. 1138 (E.D. Va. 1997)

Yeazell, pp. 199-201


Facts: The plaintiffs are American companies suing foreign companies.  The defendants challenged personal jurisdiction and venue.


Issue: Is venue proper in the Eastern District of Virginia?


Rule: The foreign defendants may be sued in any district.  The American distributors can only be sued in districts where they can be “found”.


Analysis: The court looks at the contacts of the American defendants in Virginia and finds that some of the American distributors can be found in the Eastern District of Virginia, though some may only be found in the Western District of Virginia.


Conclusion: The court rules that the plaintiff must make a showing that venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia or else the proceedings would be transferred to the Western District of Virginia.


Notes and Problems



a.      The requirements for personal jurisdiction are satisfied by a two-part test: first, a statutory test, which was passed, and second, by a constitutional test.  Any way you slice it, the court says that service was constitutionally okay, and therefore the statutory threshold test “collapses” into the constitutional test.

b.     OK!


a.      If there are only foreign defendants, venue may lie in any district in the country.

b.     If there are both foreign and domestic defendants, you are constrained in your choice of venue by the more strict § 1391(b)(3).  You need to pick a district where at least one of the defendants can be found.

c.     The domestic defendants cannot be sued in the Eastern District if none of them can be found there.  The plaintiff failed to allege that any of the domestic defendants could be found in the Eastern District.  The court needs the plaintiffs to provide such evidence in order to proceed.

3.     Why have both venue and personal jurisdiction?  Venue is older than personal jurisdiction.  We could even get rid of venue.  That would be inconvenient in the short term, but it wouldn’t violate the Due Process Clause and would save time and money in the long run.


Back to Self-Imposed Restraints on Jurisdictional Power

Back to Casebook Notes