Cecil Elmore Jr v. Starbucks Coffee Company

DISCUSSION

Under the general venue statute, a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . ; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

1 See Elmore v. Starbucks, 2:24-CV-03918, 7 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2024) (First Amended Complaint asserting claims that arose “[o]n October 28, 2023, at address, 6745 Hollywood Blvd, Los Angeles, California, 90028, [when] Plaintiff Cecil Elmore Jr was a customer at this Defendant Starbucks Corporation restaurant.”); Elmore v. Islas, Jr., No. 24-CV-1719, 11 (C.D. Cal. April 29, 2024) (describing Plaintiff’s pleading as “a 531-page Complaint against 146 defendants, including Starbucks . . . .” ). For venue purposes, a “natural person” resides in the district where the person is domiciled, and an “entity with the…