3DD LLC v. Creative Visions, Inc.
1:20-cv-03462
N.D. Ill.Jan 11, 2021Background
- Plaintiff 3DD LLC is an Illinois-based event planner; Defendant Creative Visions, Inc. (CVI) is a North Carolina event-planning corporation.
- CVI, retained by Symmetry (NC), contacted 3DD in April 2018 to arrange a charter cruise; 3DD introduced SeaReg (IL) and the parties negotiated by phone and email.
- Royal Caribbean agreed to prepaid commissions; Royal Caribbean paid commissions to 3DD in Illinois, and 3DD forwarded CVI’s share ($381,609) to CVI. Industry practice required commissions to be returned if the cruise did not occur.
- The April 2020 cruise was cancelled due to COVID-19; Royal Caribbean demanded refunds. 3DD and SeaReg repaid commissions; CVI refused, calling its payment a nonrefundable referral fee.
- 3DD sued in Cook County (removed to federal court). CVI moved to dismiss for improper venue (arguing lack of personal jurisdiction) or, alternatively, to transfer to the Eastern District of North Carolina. The court denied both motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper (personal jurisdiction over CVI) | CVI purposefully availed itself of Illinois by soliciting and negotiating with Illinois 3DD, communicating by phone/email, and receiving payments routed through Illinois. | CVI is a North Carolina corporation with no physical presence in Illinois; contacts insufficient for jurisdiction. | Court: Specific jurisdiction exists—CVI purposefully directed activities to Illinois via negotiations and payment routing; venue is proper. |
| Whether transfer to Eastern District of North Carolina under §1404(a) is warranted | Plaintiff: Illinois is proper forum; plaintiff’s choice of forum, neutral-to-even private-interest factors, and this court’s familiarity with Illinois law favor keeping case here. | Defendant: NDNC is more convenient for defendant and many witnesses; transfer would serve convenience. | Court: Transfer denied—private and public interests are neutral or favor plaintiff’s choice; witnesses split geographically; familiarity with Illinois law supports retaining the case. |
Key Cases Cited
- W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schumacher, 844 F.3d 670 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard for accepting complaint facts on motion to dismiss)
- Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010) (Illinois long-arm statute interpreted to the limits of due process)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (personal-jurisdiction focus on defendant’s contacts with the forum)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts due-process framework)
- Felland v. Clifton, 682 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2012) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction)
- Lexington Ins. Co. v. Hotai Ins. Co., Ltd., 938 F.3d 874 (7th Cir. 2019) (reiteration of specific-jurisdiction requirements)
- Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286 (7th Cir. 1989) (district court discretion on §1404(a) transfers)
- Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516 (1990) (transferee court applies transferor forum’s choice-of-law rules)
- Hinc v. Lime-O-Sol Co., 382 F.3d 716 (7th Cir. 2004) (application of Illinois contract law considerations)