U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 87— DISTRICT COURTS; VENUE

28 U.S.C. § 1390

Scope

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Venue Defined.—As used in this chapter, the term “venue” refers to the geographic specification of the proper court or courts for the litigation of a civil action that is within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the district courts in general, and does not refer to any grant or restriction of subject-matter jurisdiction providing for a civil action to be adjudicated only by the district court for a particular district or districts.(b)Exclusion of Certain Cases.—Except as otherwise provided by law, this chapter shall not govern the venue of a civil action in which the district court exercises the jurisdiction conferred by section 1333, except that such civil actions may be transferred between district courts as provided in this chapter.(c)Clarification Regarding Cases Removed From State Courts.—This chapter shall not determine the district court to which a civil action pending in a State court may be removed, but shall govern the transfer of an action so removed as between districts and divisions of the United States district courts.(Added Pub. L. 112–63, title II, § 201(a), Dec. 7, 2011, 125 Stat. 762.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 112–63, title II, § 205, Dec. 7, 2011, 125 Stat. 764, provided that: “The amendments made by this title [enacting this section, amending sections 1391 and 1404 of this title, and repealing section 1392 of this title]—“(1) shall take effect upon the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 7, 2011]; and“(2) shall apply to—“(A) any action that is commenced in a United States district court on or after such effective date; and“(B) any action that is removed from a State court to a United States district court and that had been commenced, within the meaning of State law, on or after such effective date.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 110 cases (77 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Federal Home Loan Bank of Bost v. Moody's Corporation
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Federal Home Loan Bank of Bost v. Moody's Corporation (2016) ca1 · cites it 2× “, 28 U.S.C. § 1390 (a) (providing that “the term ‘venue’ refers to the geographic specification of the proper court or courts for the litigation, of a civil action that is within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the district courts in general”); id.”
Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Ocean Reef Charters LLC (2018) nywd · cites it 2× “82 ("An admiralty or maritime claim under Rule 9(h) is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1390 ."). 3 Accordingly, "[i]n federal admiralty practice, personal jurisdiction and venue analyses merge so that venue is proper in any district in which valid service of process may be had on the…”
Vasquez v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass'n (2015) cand · cites it 2× “Even if the Court denies the Remand Motion, Plaintiff asserts, venue is automatically proper in this Court under the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1390 (c), which provides that an action may be removed to the district court where the state court action is pending.”
Delpin Aponte v. United States (2008) uscfc · cites it 2× “§ 1491 (a)(1), was the reason the case was transferred from the district court, the nonexistent 28 U.S.C. § 1390 is identified as our source of jurisdiction (along with provisions of the money-mandating FLSA).”
Toomey v. Dahl (2014) mnd “28 U.S.C. § 1390 (c) (“This chapter shall not determine the district court to which a civil action pending in a State court may be removed, but shall govern the transfer of an action so removed as between districts and divisions of the United States district courts.”
Stone & Webster, Inc. v. Georgia Power Company (2013) dcd “Furthermore, Defendants are not arguing that venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1390 or § 1391; nor have they sought a transfer on forum nonconveniens grounds pursuant to 28 U.”
Amazon Produce Network, LLC v. Nyk Line (2015) paed · cites it 2× “See 28 U.S.C. § 1390 (b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 82.”
Buckeye Pennsauken Terminal LLC v. Dominique Trading Corp. (2015) paed “In the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, which is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1390 (b), Congress clarified that “admiralty disputes would be subject to the general transfer provisions in 28 U.”
Franco v. Mabe Trucking (2021) ca5 “, 28 U.S.C. § 1390 (a) (“[T]he term ‘venue’ refers to the geographic specification of the proper court or courts for the litigation of a civil action that is within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the district courts in general.”
Robinson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (2014) nyed “See 28 U.S.C. § 1390 (c). The facts leave the case in a peculiar posture for purposes of determining a § 1404(a) motion.”
WALKER v. HIGHMARK BCBSD HEALTH OPTIONS, INC. (2022) pawd · cites it 2× “” 28 U.S.C. § 1390 (c). This statute codifies the long-standing rule that venue in removal cases is governed by § 1441 not § 1391.”
Mathes v. General Motors, L.L.C. (2015) vaccaugusta · cites it 2× “The scope provision of Chapter 87 of the United States Code is found in 28 U.S.C. § 1390 , and it speaks generally to federal district courts, including the “venue of a civil action in which the district *160 court exercises jurisdiction by section 1333, except that such civil…”
Show all 110 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.