Campbell v. Campbell
262 F. Supp. 3d 701
N.D. Ill.2017Background
- Dawn Campbell (plaintiff), an Illinois resident who moved from Minnesota in 2015 for employment with Inland Real Estate, sued Kenneth Campbell and his company for defamatory emails sent in January 2016.
- Kenneth Campbell (defendant) composed and sent emails and complaints (to Inland, SEC, FINRA) from Shoreview, Minnesota alleging plaintiff engaged in fraud, unlicensed securities sales, and other misconduct.
- Defendant admits sending the communications but contends the statements are true and moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- Plaintiff alleges the emails were sent directly to Inland (including submission via Inland’s website) and to her supervisor, Rod Curtis, causing reputational injury in Illinois.
- The district court evaluated specific personal jurisdiction (purposeful direction, causation, and reasonableness) and the § 1404(a) transfer factors (convenience and interests of justice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this court has specific personal jurisdiction over Kenneth Campbell | Campbell purposefully directed tortious emails to Inland in Illinois causing injury there | Emails were sent from Minnesota and might be opened anywhere; not expressly aimed at Illinois | Court: Specific jurisdiction exists — defendant intentionally sent emails to Illinois recipient(s), foreseeable injury in Illinois, and exercising jurisdiction is reasonable |
| Whether personal jurisdiction extends to Campbell Professional Services LLC | Emails bore the company name in signature and defendant acted as agent | Defendant asserts emails were personal, not company actions | Court: Prima facie agency shown by signature; jurisdiction over company permitted |
| Whether the complaint should be dismissed for failure to show publication to a third party in Illinois | Sent directly to Inland and Curtis; initial message via Inland website supports publication | Argues emails were blocked and thus not published/read in Illinois | Court: Merits issue; at prima facie stage sending to Inland supports inference of publication; defendant’s own email undermines blocking claim |
| Whether transfer to District of Minnesota is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) | Plaintiff prefers Illinois (resident); injury occurred in Illinois; evidence re: publication and damages located in Illinois | Majority of defendant’s witnesses and some documents are in Minnesota; faster time-to-trial in Minnesota | Court: Denied transfer — plaintiff’s forum choice and locus of injury in Illinois outweigh defendant’s convenience arguments; interests of justice do not favor transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir.) (prima facie burden for jurisdictional facts on written record)
- Kipp v. Ski Enter. Corp. of Wisconsin, 783 F.3d 695 (7th Cir.) (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction — ‘‘at home’’ standard)
- Felland v. Clifton, 682 F.3d 665 (7th Cir.) (three-part test for specific personal jurisdiction and purposeful-direction formulation)
- Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796 (7th Cir.) (email recipients on a list do not alone create forum contacts)
- Rice v. Nova Biomedical Corp., 38 F.3d 909 (7th Cir.) (defamation tort occurs where plaintiff suffers injury)