Denton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation et al
Filing
1454
ORDER. The Court GRANTS Clow's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Failure to Establish Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 1120) and DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against Clow without prejudice. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 2/19/15. (ajr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BILLIE DENTON, Individually and as Special
Administrator for the Estate of ROBERT F.
DENTON, Deceased,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-cv-1243-SMY-DGW
vs.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
CORPORATIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant Clow Corporation’s (“Clow”) Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Failure to Establish Personal Jurisdiction
(Doc. 1120) to which Plaintiff Billie Denton has responded (Doc. 1194). For the following
reasons, the Court grants the motion.
Plaintiff alleges decedent Robert F. Denton (“Decedent”) was exposed to and inhaled,
ingested or otherwise absorbed large amounts of asbestos fibers from products manufactured,
sold, distributed, or installed by Clow. Plaintiff alleges no facts indicating Decedent’s injuries
arose from Clow’s connections to the State of Illinois. Clow filed the instant motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) arguing this Court does not have personal
jurisdiction.
Plaintiff concedes that Decedent did not work with Clow’s products in Illinois.
Plaintiff, however, argues that this Court has jurisdiction over Clow because of its “substantial,
continuous, and systematic contacts” with Illinois which includes several physical locations and
substantial business in Illinois.
Here, because no material facts are in dispute, the Court may rule on Defendant’s motion
absent an evidentiary hearing. See Hyatt Int’l Corp. v. Coco, 302 F.3d 707, 712-13 (7th Cir.
2002). Where a court rules on a Rule 12(b)(2) motion on paper, the plaintiff “need only make
out a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction.” Id. at 713.
In diversity cases, a district court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant “who is
subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is
located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). Illinois’ long-arm statute allows the exercise of jurisdiction
to the full extent permitted under the Due Process Clause. Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693,
700 (7th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, a district court sitting in Illinois must inquire whether the
“defendant has certain minimum contact with [the State] such that the maintenance of the suit
does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Daimler AG v.
Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 754 (2014) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown,
131 S. Ct. 2846, 2853 (2011)). Personal jurisdiction may be either specific or general. Daimler
AG, 134 S. Ct. at 701-03.
Specific jurisdiction arises where an out-of-state “defendant has ‘purposefully directed’
his activities at residents of the forum, Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774
(1984), and the litigation results from alleged injuries that ‘arise out of or relate to those
activities’ Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984).”
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-73 (1985). Here, Plaintiff that Decedent’s
alleged injuries do not arise out of or relate to Clow’s contacts with Illinois. As such, this Court
lacks specific personal jurisdiction over the claims against Clow.
General jurisdiction arises over a foreign corporation “when their affiliations with the
State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum
State.” Goodyear, 131 S. Ct. at 2851. With respect to a corporation, the place of incorporation
2
and principal place of business are ‘paradig[m] . . . bases for general jurisdiction.” Daimler AG,
134 S. Ct. at 760 (quoting Brilmayer et al, A General Look at General Jurisdiction, 66 Texas L.
Rev. 721, 735 (1988)). A foreign corporation, however, may be “at home in the forum State”
where its “continuous corporate operations within a state [are] so substantial and of such a nature
as to justify suit.” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 318 (1945)); see also
Perkins v. Benguiet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952) (general jurisdiction appropriate in
Ohio over Philippine corporation where the company’s affairs were overseen in Ohio during the
war).
Here, Plaintiff does not assert that Clow is incorporated or maintains its principal place of
business in Illinois. Further, Plaintiff has not suggested that Clow’s affiliation with Illinois is “so
continuous and systematic as to render” Clow at home in Illinois. Clow undoubtedly has
contacts in Illinois. However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the mere presence of a
defendant in the forum does not subject it to all-purpose jurisdiction in that forum. See Daimler
AG, 134 S. Ct. at 752, 762 (finding no general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation where
subsidiary, whose actions were assumed attributable to the corporation, had multiple facilities
and a regional office in the forum state). Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to make out a prima
facie case of personal jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Clow’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
First Amended Complaint for Failure to Establish Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 1120) and
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims against Clow without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 19, 2015
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?