A venue is the location in which something takes place. In a legal context, it is important to have the proper geographic location and court to hold a civil or criminal trial; otherwise, there could be procedural issues that nullify the case.
Unlike subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, venue choice is not dictated by the U.S. Constitution. The restrictions on venue choice are imposed through federal and state statutes. The goal of the restriction is to ensure that the location of the suit is reasonable and convenient given where the evidence, witness, and defendants are.
In federal court, the general rule for venue suitability in a civil case is governed by 28 USC §1391(b). According to 1391(b)(i) and (ii), either any district where a defendant resides (if all defendants reside in the same state), or any district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim happened, or any district where a substantial part of the property that constitutes the subject of the claim is situated, would be proper. However, if none of the above applies, then any district court where the court has personal jurisdiction over the parties suffice. An individual’s residency is their domicile, while a corporation’s residency, unlike in personal jurisdiction, is only their principal place of business.
When a lawsuit is filed in an improper venue, the parties can file a 12b(3) motion to dismiss based on improper venue in the pre-trial proceedings. Alternatively, the parties can file a 1406(a) motion to either dismiss the case or transfer the case to a proper venue. However, the court has the discretion to reject the petition if the objection is not filed timely or is not sufficient.
When a lawsuit is filed in a proper venue, the parties can petition to transfer the venue under 28 USC 1404 upon the consent of all parties involved. Similarly, the court has the discretion to reject the petition. Alternatively, the parties or the court can resort to forum non conveniens to dismiss the case.
Regarding the choice of law, the law of the first proper venue would be the governing law. For example, suppose Venue A is not proper and Venue B is proper, the case would adopt the law of Venue B after the transfer. However, if both Venue A and Venue B are proper, Venue A’s law would be adopted because Venue A is the first proper venue in the case. One incentive for the plaintiff to agree to a venue transfer under 28 USC 1404 is that they could enjoy the choice of the law of the original venue and the ease of access in the new venue.
Illustrative Case Law: Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Construction Co., 529 U.S. 193 (2000); In re Volkswagen of Am., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008); Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (2013)
See also: jurisdiction; general jurisdiction
[Last updated in August of 2024 by the Wex Definitions Team]