Harlan v. Johnson & Johnson et al

Filing 35

ORDER granting 13 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 8/28/2015. (rlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JUDYTH HARLAN,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 14-cv-0418-SMY-SCW

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc.’s. Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 13). Defendant filed its Motion on April 20, 2015. Plaintiff’s response was due
on May 26, 2015 and no response has been filed. The Court may, it its discretion, construe a
party’s failure to file a timely response as an admission of the merits of the motion, and the Court
will do so in this case. See Local Rule 7.1(c) (requiring a response to a motion to dismiss be
filed 30 days after service of the motion and stating a failure to timely respond may be deemed
an admission of the merits of the motion); see also Tobel v. City of Hammond, 94 F.3d 360, 362
(7th Cir.1996) (“[T]he district court clearly has authority to enforce strictly its Local Rules, even
if a default results.”).
Defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc. argues that this Court has no jurisdiction over it in
this matter. 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). 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’s alleged injuries
do not arise out of or relate to Defendant’s contacts with Illinois. As such, this Court lacks
specific personal jurisdiction over the claims against this defendant.
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
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)).
Here, Defendant is not incorporated nor maintains its principal place of business in
Illinois. Further, Defendant’s affiliation with Illinois is not “so continuous and systematic as to
render” Defendant at home in Illinois. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Imerys Talc
America, Inc.’s. Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13). As no Counts remain pending against this
defendant, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 28, 2015

/s/Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE

2