Bjorkstam v. MPC Products Corporation
2014 IL App (1st) 133710
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (bystanders injured in a Mexico City plane crash) sued MPC Products Corp. and Woodward, Inc. in Cook County, Illinois, alleging a defective part.
- Cook County dismissed the Illinois suit for forum non conveniens, finding Harris County, Texas a more convenient forum and ordering that defendants accept service in Texas and waive statute-of-limitations defenses per Ill. S. Ct. R. 187(c)(2).
- Plaintiffs filed in Texas; they mailed the petition to defendants’ counsel in 2011 but did not effect formal Texas court service for MPC and only issued a citation to Woodward in January 2013.
- The Texas court dismissed plaintiffs’ suit against Woodward for want of prosecution (stating dismissal was with prejudice); plaintiffs did not appeal that dismissal.
- Plaintiffs then refiled in Cook County. Defendants moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(4), arguing res judicata/preclusion and that they did not violate the forum non conveniens order. The Illinois court granted dismissal; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas dismissal precluded Illinois court from deciding reinstatement (res judicata) | Texas dismissal bars refiling in Illinois; creates preclusive effect | Texas dismissal is a final judgment; preclusive effect applies | Court: Res judicata did not bar Illinois court from deciding reinstatement because plaintiffs could not have raised reinstatement (an Illinois Rule 187(c)(2) remedy) in Texas |
| Whether defendants violated Ill. S. Ct. R. 187(c)(2) by not "accepting service of process from" Texas court | Bjorkstam: mailing petition and participation in Illinois litigation meant defendants should be deemed to have accepted service; defendants violated Rule 187(c)(2) | Defendants: they never received valid Texas service; only a sheriff/authorized officer can effect citation under Texas law; no duty to accept informal notice | Held: Rule 187(c)(2) requires acceptance of legally sufficient service under the law of the forum (Texas); plaintiffs failed to effect valid Texas service and thus did not trigger defendants' obligation to accept service |
| Whether Rule 187(c)(2)(i) required defendants to waive challenges to service or personal-jurisdiction defenses | Bjorkstam: condition required waiver of service objections | Defendants: rule requires acceptance of service but does not waive jurisdictional/service defenses | Held: Rule 187(c)(2)(i) requires acceptance of proper service but does not compel waiver of personal-jurisdiction or service sufficiency objections (citing Miller) |
| Whether defendants' knowledge of the Texas suit substitutes for formal service | Bjorkstam: defendants had actual notice through Illinois proceedings, depositions, mediation and mailing; that suffices | Defendants: Texas law requires strict compliance; knowledge does not substitute for formal service | Held: Actual or constructive knowledge does not satisfy Texas service requirements; strict compliance required, so knowledge alone insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Evanston Ins. Co. v. Riseborough, 2014 IL 114271 (discussing scope and standards for section 2-619 motions)
- Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2012 IL 111443 (pleading construction and inferences on dismissal motions)
- Miller v. Consol. R.R. Corp., 173 Ill. 2d 252 (1996) (Rule 187(c)(2)(i) acceptance of service does not waive personal-jurisdiction objections)
- Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988) (definition of service of process as formal delivery sufficient to charge defendant)
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (interpretive principle for borrowed legal terms of art)
- BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Mitchell, 2014 IL 116311 (service of process as establishing personal jurisdiction)
- MobileVision Imaging Servs., L.L.C. v. LifeCare Hospitals of N. Texas, L.P., 260 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. App. 2008) (Texas requires strict compliance with service rules; knowledge does not substitute for proper service)