venue is challenged by a defendant, plaintiff bears the burden of proving that venue is proper in the forum state.” Saferstein v. Paul, Mardinly, Durham, James, Flandreau & Rodger, P.C., et al, 927 F.Supp. 731 (S.D.N.Y.1996). Plaintiffs advance arguments based upon both § 1391(a)(1) and § 1391(a)(2). Under Section 1391(a)(2) (venue proper where “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”) the Plaintiffs chosen forum need not have the most substantial contacts to the dispute. See United States Surgical Corp. v. Imagyn Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., 25 F.Supp.2d 40 (D.Conn.1998). The fact that substantial activities may have taken place in other districts is not dispositive. See Setco Enterprises Corp. v. Robbins, 19 F.3d 1278, 1281 (D.Minn.1994) (<HOLDING>); Bates v. C & S Adjusters, Inc., 980 F.2d 865,
holding that venue is proper in any judicial district in which the corporation is doing business holding that a transfer order issued by a district court in another circuit is reviewable only in the circuit of the transferor district court holding that venue in the district identified in  9 was mandatory holding that the eighth circuit no longer asks which district among two or more potential forums is the best venue holding that if a modification petition is filed in a county where venue is appropriate it is improper to transfer the venue to another county merely because venue also would have been proper in the other county however once an enforcement proceeding is undertaken in an appropriate venue venue is improper in a different county over a subsequently filed petition to modify the decree which was the subject of the enforcement proceedings