see 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (providing for transfer of a case where both the original and the requested venue are proper), and presented no evidence showing that it was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Thus, the firm failed to satisfy its burden of showing that venue was improper in the District of New Jersey, and the District Court erred in dismissing Great Western’s amended complaint on that basis. c Appellees maintain that even if the District Court’s venue determination is erroneous, we should affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Great Western’s amended complaint on alternative grounds, including claim preclusion, arbitral immunity, and failure to state a claim for relief. See United States v. Sanchez, 562 F.3d 275, 279 (3d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Although these arguments may well be
holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds recognizing that appellate court may affirm result on reasons different from those on which lower court relied recognizing an appellate court may affirm a trial courts decision that reached the right result regardless of the trial courts reasoning holding that an appellate court may affirm the result reached by a district court on alternative grounds holding that we may affirm on an alternative basis supported by the record