Aasonn v. Delaney
2011 IL App (2d) 101125
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Aasonn, LLC sued Delaney and Performance Management Strategies, LLC for breach of contract and fraud in Illinois.
- The 3rd amended complaint alleged a Strategic Alliance Agreement governing consulting services related to SuccessFactors software.
- Contract negotiations occurred across Illinois and New York, with Illinois appearing to be the contracting and control nexus.
- Defendants, though performing from New York, were alleged to be heavily coordinated by Aasonn in Illinois, including invoicing and project management.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; on appeal, the issue was whether Illinois could exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process.
- The appellate court reversed, holding that defendants had minimum contacts with Illinois and requiring remand for further proceedings, including potential dismissal of some fraud counts if appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Illinois can exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresidents | Aasonn asserts minimum contacts via contract, tort, and substantial connection under 2-209. | Delaney and defendants lack purposeful availment of Illinois law and minimal contacts. | Yes; Illinois had jurisdiction over defendants. |
| Whether the fraud counts were pled with sufficient specificity | Aasonn pleaded detailed misrepresentations via invoices and work performed. | Fraud counts lack particularized misrepresentations for each project. | Fraud counts pled with sufficient specificity; not dismissed on pleadings. |
| Whether the contract action arises from Illinois-related contacts | Contract was formed in Illinois and the performance nexus is Illinois-based. | Performance occurred outside Illinois; no Illinois nexus. | Contract-related activities were substantially connected to Illinois; jurisdiction proper. |
| Whether the trial court’s dismissal should be affirmed or reversed and remanded | Jurisdiction supports reversal; remand allows continued proceedings. | Dismissal was appropriate absent jurisdiction. | Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and fair play necessity for specific jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts required for jurisdiction)
- Pace Communications Services Corp. v. Express Products, Inc., 408 Ill. App. 3d 970 (2011) (due process standard applied to Illinois long-arm)
- MacNeil v. Trambert, 401 Ill. App. 3d 1077 (2010) (prima facie jurisdiction burden and de novo review on documentary evidence)
- Bolger v. Nautica International, Inc., 369 Ill. App. 3d 947 (2007) (choice-of-law relevance to jurisdiction)
- Ideal Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Shipyard Marine, Inc., 213 Ill. App. 3d 675 (1991) (where contract is formed for purposes of long-arm)
- West Virginia Laborers Pension Trust Fund v. Caspersen, 357 Ill. App. 3d 673 (2005) (intent requirement mirroring purposeful availment)
- Zankle v. Queen Anne Landscaping, 311 Ill. App. 3d 308 (2000) (deceptive practice definition under Illinois consumer statute)