Venue

Fact patterns hand you a residence list and an event location, then ask where venue lies. Nail the residency definitions: an individual resides where domiciled (§ 1391(c)(1)), and an entity defendant resides in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction on that claim (§ 1391(c)(2)). A frequent tell is a non-U.S. defendant — a defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any district, and that defendant’s joinder is disregarded when applying the “all defendants reside in the same state” prong (§ 1391(c)(3)).

The trap is the § 1404 vs. § 1406 trigger: § 1404(a) transfers a properly venued case for convenience, while § 1406(a) cures improper venue (transfer in the interest of justice, or dismiss). Memory hook: 1404 = convenience, 1406 = correction. On a § 1404 transfer the transferee applies the transferor’s choice-of-law rules (Van Dusen; extended to plaintiff-initiated transfers by Ferens); a § 1406 transfer carries no such baggage — the transferee’s law governs. Don’t equate “proper venue” with “personal jurisdiction” — distinct inquiries. And venue analysis never applies to removal, which lands in the district embracing the state court (§ 1390(c)).