that venue in the District of Kansas is proper under § 1391(b). The contacts in this case consist entirely of oral, written, and electronic communications between both parties. Even if it is true that a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claim occurred in California, it is equally true that a substantial part of the events surrounding Plaintiffs claim occurred in Kansas. See Etienne, 12 F.Supp.2d at 1181 (concluding that a substantial part of the relevant conduct took place in Kansas because “the primary events giving rise to this [breach of contract] action ... occurred by means of communications between ... two states,” and “to the extent that [the] events occurred anywhere, they occurred almost as much in Kansas as in Alabama”); Safrabank, 776 F.Supp. at 541 (<HOLDING>). The fact that Defendants directed their RDA
holding that prisons have programs services or activities because they provide inmates with many recreational activities medical services and educational and vocational programs  holding that venue was not proper in the southern district of new york where the plaintiff resided because the allegedly erroneous advice to file a case in new york that could result in a finding of civil contempt against the plaintiff originated from the defendants office in california holding that congress may regulate purely local intrastate activities if they are part of an economic class of activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce recognizing the substantial body of case law discussing distinction between preliminary and postliminary activities on the one hand and principle activities of employment on the other holding that venue was proper in kansas because both of the defendants conducted many of their activities with the plaintiff through the mail despite that fact that the defendants activities may have been more substantial in california