of a district court of,any matter involving a party who does not interpose timely and sufficient objection to the venue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(b). In this case, the Court finds that Defendants have waived any objection to improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Plaintiff’s filed this case in August 2004. Although Plaintiff amended its Complaint in 2009, the current venue issue that Defendants raise was available, and apparent, at the time of the original Complaint. (See Compl. ¶ 2.) In 2005, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss raising several Rule 12(b) defenses including subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs did not raise any challenge to venue at this time. Cf. RSM Prod. Corp. v. Fridman, 643 F.Supp.2d 382, 395 n. 7 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (<HOLDING>). Even assuming the waiver standards of Rule 12
holding that the failure to file a proper motion to dismiss raising a constitutional challenge to a criminal statute waives the issue on appeal holding that the deputy prime minister of grenada waived his right to challenge venue under the fsia by not raising the matter in his first motion to dismiss holding in a capital case that the defendant waived his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue where the trial court took the motion under advisement but the defendant failed to seek a ruling on the motion and failed to renew the motion after the jurors had been qualified holding that where a defendant if given the opportunity to renew a motion for a change of venue immediately prior to trial but fails to do so the right to challenge venue is waived holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court