Buy This Entire Record For
Bryce v. Choice Hotels International
United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
January 8, 2019
MICHELE BRYCE, Plaintiff,
CHOICE HOTELS INERNATIONAL, BAMCO, INC., BARON CAPITAL GROUP, INC, BARON CAPITAL MNGT, INC., SUNBURST HOSPITALITY CORPORATION, BARBARA T. ALEXANDER, BARBARA J BAINUM, STEWART BAINUM, JR, RONALD STEPHEN BARON, WILLIAM L. JEWS, MONTE JM KOCHE, LIZA LANDSMAN, PATRICK PACIOUS, SCOTT ARNOLD RENSCHLER, ERVIN R SHAMES, and JOHN P TAGUE, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W.MOSMAN Chief United States District Judge.
matter comes before me on Defendant Choice Hotels
International's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue .
For the following reasons, I GRANT Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss or Transfer Venue  and dismiss the Complaint 
Michele Bryce is a resident of Oregon. Defendant Choice
Hotels is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Maryland. The remaining Defendants are alleged to
reside in Maryland or New York. In her Motion for Immediate
Preliminary Injunction , Plaintiff alleges that the
events in question took place in Tucker, Georgia. Defendant
Choice Hotels subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss or
Transfer Venue , claiming that venue was improper. Also
pending before me are Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction , Plaintiff's Motion to Compel ,
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Motion to Compel
, and Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Response
to Plaintiff's Request for Injunctive Relief and for Stay
of Proceedings Until Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
U.S.C. § 1406(a) provides that a “district court
of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the
wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the
interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or
division in which it could have been brought.” Parties
may move to dismiss an action for improper venue under Rule
12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b) defines when venue is proper. 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b) allows a plaintiff to bring a civil action 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 a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the
action is situated; 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.
should look to the categories of § 1391(b) to determine
if venue that has been challenged is proper. Atl. Marine
Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. Of
Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 55-56 (2013). If the case falls into
one of the three categories of § 1391(b), venue is
proper. Id. at 56. If the case does not fall into
one of the three categories, “venue is improper, and
the case must be dismissed or transferred under §
Choice Hotels has challenged venue through a 12(b)(3) motion.
Therefore I must look § 1391(b) to determine if the
action at hand falls into any of the three categories.
§ 1391(b)(1), venue is proper if any of the defendants
reside in Oregon and all defendants are residents of the
state in which this district is located. Here, none of the
alleged defendants are residents of Oregon, therefore venue
is not proper under § 1391(b)(1). Under §
1391(b)(2), venue is proper if a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the
district. Here, the events and omissions giving rise to the
claim are alleged to have occurred in Tucker, Georgia. None
of the alleged events or omissions occurred within Oregon,
therefore venue is not proper under § 1391(b)(2).
Finally, under § 1391(b)(3), if no district exists in
which an action may be brought, venue is proper in any
judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the
court's personal ...