Sportsman v. California Overland, Ltd. et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 3/23/2017. Mailed notice. (mgh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Charity Sportsman,
Independent Administrator
of the Estate of Terry G.
Sportsman, Jr., deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
California Overland, Ltd.,
a corporation, and David V.
Juneau,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 16 C 9004
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In this personal injury suit, plaintiff, who is a citizen
and resident of Illinois, sues California Overland, a Minnesota
company headquartered in Wabasha, Minnesota, and its employee,
David Juneau, a citizen and resident of South Dakota, asserting
claims of negligence and survival under Illinois’ Survival Act,
735 ILCS 5/13-209. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction, which I grant for the reasons
that follow.
The parties do not dispute the material facts: California
Overland is a trucking company that operates in the forty-eight
contiguous United States. It does not own or lease any property
or
facilities
in
Illinois.
Of
the
approximately
190
drivers
California
Overland
employed
in
2015
and
2016,
five
were
Illinois residents.
California Overland advertises through its website and on
social media such as Facebook, and it also uses some national
advertising agencies and distributes paper pamphlets at truck
stops.
Some
of
California
Overland’s
national
advertising
probably gets to Illinois. See Meyer Dep., Pl.’s Resp., Exh. B
at 35:13-36:7. In 2015, 8.9% of California Overland’s revenue
stemmed from orders delivered to Illinois, and 3.98% of its
revenue stemmed from loads shipped from Illinois. In 2016, these
figures dropped to 3.2% and 2.7% respectively,1 which California
Overland’s President, Dustin Meyer, attributed to the loss, in
April or May of 2016, of “a customer that sent [defendant] to
Illinois quite a bit.”
Id. at 34:20-25. In 2015, California
Overland had 538 customers in total, of which 46 were located in
Illinois. In 2016, 32 of California Overland’s 403 customers
were located in Illinois.
The claims asserted in this case arise out of an accident
that
occurred
on
the
interstate
highway
in
Rock
County,
Wisconsin on June 14, 2015, when, in the course of performing
his job duties, Mr. Juneau drove a truck owned by California
Overland across the median and collided with a vehicle driven by
Terry Sportsman, killing Mr. Sportsman. Mr. Juneau had picked up
1
These figures are through November of 2016.
2
the truck in Guymon, Oklahoma, several days before the accident
and had delivered a load to Pennsylvania. From there, Mr. Juneau
proceeded with an empty trailer to Wabasha, Wisconsin, traveling
through, but not stopping in, Illinois en route.
A
federal
court
sitting
in
diversity
has
personal
jurisdiction over a defendant to the same extent a court of the
state in which it sits—Illinois in this case—would have such
jurisdiction. RAR, Inc. v. Turner Diesel, Ltd., 107 F.3d 1272,
1275
(7th
Cir.
1997).
Because
Illinois
allows
for
personal
jurisdiction to the full extent consistent with due process, the
federal constitutional and state statutory inquiries merge. See
Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 700 (7th Cir. 2010).
“Personal
jurisdiction
can
be
general
or
specific,
depending on the extent of the defendant’s contacts” with the
forum.
Mobile
Anesthesiologists
Chicago,
LLC
v.
Anesthesia
Assocs. of Houston Metroplex, P.A., 623 F.3d 440, 444 (7th Cir.
2010).
Specific
defendant
in
a
jurisdiction
suit
“refers
‘arising
out
to
jurisdiction
over
of
or
to
related
a
the
defendant’s contacts with the forum.’” RAR, Inc., 107 F.3d at
1277 (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall,
466 U.S. 408, 414 n.8 (1984)). General jurisdiction “is for
suits neither arising out of nor related to the defendant’s
contacts,
and
it
is
permitted
only
where
the
defendant
has
‘continuous and systematic general business contacts’” with the
3
forum. Id. (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales, 466 U.S. at 416).
Because general jurisdiction “allows a defendant to be sued in
the forum regardless of the subject matter of the litigation,”
the
minimum
process
contacts
are
specific
required
“significantly
jurisdiction.
to
satisfy
higher”
Purdue
constitutional
due
are
for
than
Research
required
Foundation
v.
Sanofi-
Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773, 787 (7th Cir. 2003) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Plaintiff asserts only general jurisdiction here, arguing
that
the
evidence
systematically
establishes
doing
that
business
California
within
the
Overland
state.
She
was
relies
heavily on Colletti v. Crudele, 523 N.E. 2d 1222 (Ill. App. Ct.
1988), as well as Neuman & Assoc. v. Florabelle Flowers, Inc.,
15
F.3d
721,
724
(7th
Cir.
1994),
and
Coburn
Grp.,
LLC
v.
Whitecap Advisors, LLC, No. 07 C 2448, 2007 WL 2948367, at *5
(N.D.
Ill.
Oct.
3,
2007).
In
Colletti,
the
court
exercised
general jurisdiction over a foreign trucking company that had a
registered agent in Illinois and had already appeared in three
related
cases
business
filed
operations
minimized”
even
in
in
though
Illinois,
Illinois
they
noting
that
“cannot
accounted
for
the
company’s
necessarily
only
a
be
small
percentage of its overall business. 523 N.E. 2d at 1229. In
Neuman,
the
defendants
admitted
that
they
had
been
doing
business in Illinois prior to 1992 (the year they were served
4
with the plaintiff’s complaint), but disputed jurisdiction on
the ground that their Illinois business declined markedly in
1992 (which the evidence revealed was “a bad year”). 15 F.3d at
725.
The
court
rejected
this
argument,
concluding
that
the
defendants’ Illinois business—for which they continued to employ
an
independent
sales
representative
whose
territory
covered
Illinois, and who made regular phone calls and business trips to
Illinois to solicit and do business with customers—was continual
and reflected “business as usual” even after the drop. Id. And
in
Coburn,
assert
the
general
court
determined
jurisdiction
over
that
a
Illinois
courts
non-resident
could
entity
with
“extensive contacts” with Illinois, which included, in addition
to making payments to a Chicago bank account under the contract
at issue with the Illinois-based plaintiff, conducting meetings
with
multiple
Illinois-based
materials
that
included
attending
holiday
investors;
monthly
parties
in
sending
performance
Illinois
at
marketing
summaries;
which
business
and
was
discussed. Id. at *4-*5.
Of these cases, the most factually similar to this one is
Colletti, in which the court observed that personal jurisdiction
was
“a
close
circumstances”
appearance
in
question”
of
three
the
but
concluded
that
case—specifically,
related
cases—the
in
the
the
balance
“peculiar
defendant’s
tipped
in
the
plaintiff’s favor. 523 N.E. 2d at 1230, n. 6. The court also
5
considered “significant” the fact that the defendant maintained
a
registered
agent
in
Illinois.
Id.
These
factors
are
not
present in this case.
More importantly, none of these cases was decided after the
Supreme Court “clarified and, it is fair to say, raised the bar
for” general jurisdiction in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations,
S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011), and Daimler AG v. Bauman,
134
S.
Ct.
Wisconsin,
746
Inc.
(2014).
783
Kipp
695,
F.3d
v.
698
Ski
(7th
Enterprise
Cir.
Corp.
2015).
As
of
the
Seventh Circuit explained in Kipp, the Court’s recent precedent
reflects its view that “general jurisdiction exists only when
the organization is ‘essentially at home’ in the forum State,” a
condition the Court has thus far found to be met in only two
places:
business
the
and
state
of
the
the
state
corporation’s
of
its
principal
incorporation.
place
Id.
of
(quoting
Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919). Indeed, in each of the post-Goodyear
cases
plaintiff
Greving,
743
cites—Kipp;
F.3d
487
Northern
(7th
Cir.
Grain
2014);
Marketing,
Advanced
LLC
v.
Tactical
Ordnance Systems, LLC, v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d
796 (7th Cir. 2014);
KM Enterprises, Inc. v. Global Traffic
Technologies, Inc., 725 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2013); and Felland v.
Clifton, 682 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2012)—the court declined to
exercise general jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
6
For the foregoing reasons, and because plaintiff does not
assert
any
argument
or
evidence
to
support
my
exercise
of
personal jurisdiction over defendant Juneau, defendants’ motion
to dismiss is granted.
ENTER ORDER:
Elaine E. Bucklo
United States District Judge
Dated: March 23, 2017
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?