factual predicate of the plaintiffs claim did not occur in the plaintiffs chosen forum.” Id. citing Intrepid Potash-N.M., LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 669 F.Supp.2d 88, 95 (D.D.C. 2009). Defendants insist that the material events underlying this action are the corporate decisions underlying the SEC filings, which were made at RPM’s headquarters in Ohio, see Defs.’ Mem. at 13, and plaintiff maintains that the SEC filings themselves are among the material events that should be viewed as having taken place in the District of Columbia. See Pl.’s Opp. at 16. There appears to be support for both positions. See Berenson v. Nat’l Fin. Servs., LLC, 319 F.Supp.2d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2004) (concluding that a claim arose where the corporate decisions were made), and Savoy Indus., Inc., 587 F.2d at 1155 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as discussed above, events other
holding that some operative facts did occur in the district of columbia where nonfiling or misfilings with the sec occurred holding that a seizure could occur under these facts but hot deciding whether a seizure occurred because of factual disputes holding that discovery  does not occur until the insured discovers facts showing that dis honest acts occurred and appreciates the significance of those facts  holding that for a section 10b violation the sec must prove that the defendant in connection with the purchase or sale of securities made a materially false statement or omitted a material fact with scienter and that the plaintiffs reliance on the defendants action caused injury to the plaintiff holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying local rules that excluded some of the material facts offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment