govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-3_26-cv-01648-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
DARYLE KNIGGE, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
AMERAIL SYSTEMS INC., et al., 
Defendants. 
 

 
 
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 
DISMISS 
Re: Dkt. No. 9 
 
 
Amerail’s motion to dismiss for improper venue is granted. This order assumes the 
reader’s familiarity with the facts of the case, the parties’ arguments, and the applicable law. 
California is not a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because both the named 
defendants are residents of Pennsylvania. See Dearborn Decl. (Dkt No. 9-2) ¶ 2; Schaal Decl. 
(Dkt. No. 9-3) ¶ 2. 
California is also not a proper venue under Section 1391(b)(2) because “a substantial part 
of the events . . . giving rise to the claim” did not occur in California. Knigge asserts that in 
analyzing where the events giving rise to his employment discrimination claim took place, the 
Court must look to the totality of the employment relationship, rather than the location where the 
alleged misconduct or termination decision occurred. But the better reading of the venue statute 
is that courts must focus on the events directly relevant to the claim. See Jenkins Brick Co. v. 
Bremer, 321 F.3d 1366, 1371 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Only the events that directly give rise to a claim 
are relevant.”); Gulf Insurance Co. v. Glasbrenner, 417 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 2005) (“[F]or 
venue to be proper, significant events or omissions material to the plaintiff's claim must have 
occurred in the district in question.”) (emphasis in original). Although Knigge is a California 
resident, his job required him to be fully onsite on work sites across the country. His complaint 
of alleged employment discrimination is based on events that occurred while he was on work 
sites in Tennessee and Idaho. See Dearborn Decl. ¶ 6; Complaint (Dkt. No. 1-3) ¶¶ 17–32. The 

 
2 
only arguably relevant event that occurred in California was Knigge’s termination over a call 
with Amerail’s President, who was located in Pennsylvania at the time. Dearborn Decl. ¶ 7. But 
for a FEHA claim, the relevant location is where the termination decision took place, rather than 
where the employee happened to be at the time he was informed of the decision. See English v. 
General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc., 2019 WL 2619658, at *7 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2019), 
aff’d, 808 F. App’x 529 (9th Cir. 2020). Although English deals with when it is appropriate to 
apply FEHA extraterritoriality, rather than where venue is proper under the federal venue statute, 
focusing on the allegedly discriminatory conduct seems appropriate in the venue context as well. 
And even if the fact that Knigge was in California when he received the formal call terminating 
him is relevant to the venue analysis, it isn’t enough to establish that a substantial part of the 
relevant events occurred in California, especially given that Knigge appears to have known his 
employment was ending before the formal termination call. See Complaint ¶¶ 29–31.1 
For these reasons, this case is dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a different forum 
where venue is proper. The clerk of court is ordered to close the case. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: May 13, 2026 
______________________________________ 
VINCE CHHABRIA 
United States District Judge 
 
 
1 Knigge argues that it is too soon to determine where the events took place because no discovery 
has been conducted yet. But Knigge’s complaint itself directly alleges or strongly suggests that 
the relevant events occurred in Idaho and Tennessee. See Complaint ¶ 21, 30. Moreover, Amerail 
has submitted a declaration describing the dates and locations of the projects Knigge was 
overseeing when the incidents alleged in the complaint took place. See Dearborn Decl. ¶ 6. In 
contrast, Knigge’s declaration does not present reason to believe he was in California when those 
incidents took place. See Knigge Decl. (Dkt. No. 17-1). 

Passage view · GavelSight